Indicating potential focus in a user interface

ABSTRACT

Methods and apparatus, including computer program products, implementing and using techniques for an integrated user interface an interface that receives user input through the user interface. Output is provided through the user interface, and all user input received through the user interface is interpreted as explicitly being separated input into one of three classes, namely, pointing input, content input, and command input.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation, and claims the benefit of priorityunder 35 U.S.C. §120, of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/064,621,entitled “Indicating Potential Focus In A User Interface” filed Feb. 23,2005, which claims the benefit of priority under 35 U.S.C. §120 of U.S.patent application Ser. No. 09/827,336 entitled “Providing CommandsBased On Selections Of Content In User Interface” filed Apr. 3, 2001,which claims priority under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) to the following U.S.patent application No. 60/194,210 entitled “Integrated User InterfaceOperating System”; application No. 60/194,228 entitled “Transparent UserInterface Element”; application No. 60/194,226 entitled “User InterfaceWith Stackable Selections”; application No. 60/194,225 entitled“Indicating Potential Focus in a User Interface”; application No.60/194,351 entitled “User Interface with Universal Command Execution”;application No. 60/194,224 entitled “Circular Expanding Search”;application No. 60/194,342 entitled “Graphical Input Device Having aGrab Switch and/or Rotation Detector”; and application No. 60/194,229entitled “Zooming User Interface” all filed on Apr. 3, 2000.

The disclosures of the foregoing applications are incorporated herein byreference in their entirety.

BACKGROUND

This invention relates to computer system architecture andhuman-computer interfaces.

Definition of Interface

Computers and computer-like digital appliances such as hand-held “PDAs”(personal digital assistants) have become ubiquitous tools of modernsociety. The utility of such a device depends in large part on its “userinterface”, what is variably referred to as the human-machine interface,human-computer interface, human interface, user interface or, simply,interface. Many current computers make use of graphical user interfaces(GUIs)—complete with windows and mouse-driven menus. However, the term“interface” encompasses more and may be defined simply as the way a useraccomplishes tasks with a product—what the user does and how the productresponds. That is the interface.

The inventor has reexamined the cognitive foundations of human-machineinteraction to elucidate crucial aspects of why interface designssucceed or fail. Among his findings is that present-day graphical userinterfaces, such as those of the Windows and Macintosh operatingsystems, which are based on an architecture of operating system plusapplication programs, are inherently flawed. In addition, they haveevolved by accretion of disparate and uncoordinated ideas, rather thanfrom principled design criteria, thus they have become unnecessarilylarge, lugubrious, difficult, and inefficient.

Understanding the User 1 Locus of Attention

Initially, to understand the invention, it is helpful to understandcertain concepts related to how humans interact with the world aroundthem. When one is awake and conscious, one's “locus of attention” issome feature or object in the physical world or an idea of which one isintently and actively thinking Humans cannot completely control theirlocus of attention. For example, if a firecracker explodes unexpectedlybehind a person, his locus of attention will immediately become thesound. “Focus,” on the other hand, is often used to denote, among theobjects on a computer's display, the one that is currently selected. Auser's attention may or may not be on this kind of focus when he isusing an interface. As shown by research in cognitive psychology, anindividual has, at most, one entity on which he is concentrating.Whatever that one object, feature, memory, thought, or concept might be,it is the locus of attention. One can be physically seeing and hearingmuch more than whatever is the locus of attention without being aware ofit. If a person goes into a room looking for a misplaced item, what heor she seeks may be plainly in view but remain unnoticed. It might evenhave been within the 5-degree cone of his or her foveal vision; yet theperson does not notice it because it never became his or her locus ofattention. Current interfaces cause user errors by requiring the user toattend consciously and simultaneously to two or more things at once. Forexample, to know what a command will do, a user must also know whatapplication he or she is using.

Understanding the User 2 Habits

Persistent use of any interface will cause a user to develop habits—itis impossible to avoid developing habits when a system is usedrepeatedly. An interface that does not allow these inevitable habits tocause problems for the user is desirable. Many of the problems that makeproducts difficult and unpleasant to use are caused by human-machineinterfaces whose design fails to take into account the helpful andinjurious properties of habit formation. Keeping menu items in fixedplaces, for example, is generally better than adaptive menus as thehabit of moving the cursor to a certain location for a particular resultis frustrated when the adaptive menu moves menu items around.Furthermore, habits cannot often be broken by an act of volition; only atime-consuming training process can undo a habit. A computer system cancreate a nasty trap, for example, by permitting having two or moreheavily used applications that differ in only a handful of often-useddetails. In such a circumstance, the user is guaranteed to develophabits that will cause him to make errors when he attempts to use in oneapplication a method appropriate to only the other.

Understanding the User 3 Automaticity

As used herein, any task one has learned to do without conscious thoughthas become “automatic.” It is because of automaticity that one is ableto do more than one activity at a time: All but at most one of the tasksthat are performed simultaneously are automatic. The one that is notautomatic is, of course, the one that directly involves the locus ofattention. When two tasks are attempted simultaneously, neither of whichis automatic, performance on each task degrades (a phenomenon thatpsychologists call “interference”) because the two tasks compete forattention. As noted above, humans cannot avoid developing automaticresponses. To put it another way: No amount of training can teach a usernot to develop habits. Any sequence of actions that are performedrepeatedly will, eventually, become automatic. A set of actions thatform a sequence also becomes clumped into a single action; once onestarts a well-learned sequence of actions, such as typing the word“the”, he will not be able to stop the sequence; but will continueexecuting the actions until that clump is complete. In voice-inputsystems a clump may be a spoken word or a whole phrase. One also cannotinterrupt such a sequence unless the sequence itself becomes the locusof attention.

SUMMARY

The inventor has conceived of a new type of interface that is afundamental shift from prior systems for computer-human interaction.This new system is referred to as a Humane Interface Operating System(“HIOS”). Various methods and apparatus for user interaction that may beparticularly useful in the context of the HIOS form parts of theinvention, and while some are valuable outside of the HIOS, they workespecially well in this context. They also exhibit a synergy that tiesthem together.

In general, in one aspect, this invention provides methods andapparatus, including computer program products, implementing and usingtechniques for providing a selection by causing an apparatus to presentobjects to a user; and provide selection in response to a user inputselecting a set of one or more objects and identifying the set as aselection, the objects in a selection having a special status that canbe recognized by the apparatus, the selection of one set of objectsoperating to cause a previously current selection to change state tobecome a first old selection, whereby both the current selection and thefirst old selection can be used as operands for a command entered by theuser.

Advantageous implementations can include one or more of the followingfeatures. Indication can be provided with reference to the cursorposition, indication being a recognizable distinction added to everyselectable object of content which the cursor points to without anyfurther user action other than moving the cursor, the object pointed tobeing the indicated object, whereby the user can know at all times atwhat object the apparatus considers the user to be pointing. The objectscan be presented through audible information; and the user inputselecting objects can comprise verbal input. The apparatus can comprisea display screen and the instructions may comprise instructions to:cause the objects to be presented on the display screen to a user of theapparatus; and receive a cursor position input from a user anddisplaying a cursor at the cursor position on the display screen. Usercommands can be distinguished from other input by a quasimode. If thename of a command name or glyph that represents a command is the currentselection and a designated command key is tapped, then the commandrepresented by the name or glyph can be executed. Indication can beprovided with reference to the cursor position, indication being arecognizable distinction added to every selectable object of contentwhich the cursor points to without any further user action other thanmoving the cursor, the object pointed to being the indicated object,whereby the user can know at all times at what object the apparatusconsiders the user to be pointing. If the name of a command name orglyph that represents a command is indicated and a designated commandkey is tapped, then the command represented by the name or glyph can beexecuted. The user can create a single-object selection by tapping abutton while an object is indicated. Multiple objects can overlap whendisplayed, and the apparatus can respond to small motions of the cursorwithin the area of the overlap of selections and cause the indication tocycle through all the overlapping selections. When multiple objectsoverlap when displayed, the apparatus can respond to a position of thecursor within the area of the overlap of selections by causing theindication to cycle through all the overlapping selections. A sequenceof characters representing a command may necessarily be the sameregardless where the characters appear. A last-in, first-out stack ofselections can be created and the first old selection can be pushed ontothe stack and a previous first old selection can be pushed down in thestack to become a second old selection and all previous old selectionscan be pushed down one level in the stack. Each selection in the stackcan have a distinctive highlight or label so that its place in thesequence can be observed by the user. The depth of the stack can belimited not by any fixed number but only by the size of available memoryincluding virtual memory. The first old selection can have a distinctivehighlight to distinguish it from the current selection. The highlightsof older selections can be progressively lighter in color or have someother readily-perceptible gradient or labeling scheme. Multiplecharacters or objects can be grouped into a set in response to a useraction; wherein all items in the set are all selected together or not.Selecting an old selection can make it into the new selection and allselections in the sequence from the previous new selection to theselection just newer than the selected old selection can be decreased byone in the order. A command that interchanges the current selection andthe next most recent selection can be provided. A command that operatesto change the order of selections can be provided. The apparatus can beoperable to allow a user to create multiple selections that overlap whendisplayed. A command that coalesces at least two selections as the newselection can be provided. Commands can take any number of selections asarguments can be provided. Typing may not replace selected text or causethe current selection to become unselected. An undo and a redo commandmay be provided, wherein the undo and redo commands apply to the useractions of making and adjusting selections as well as to other useractions. The undo and redo commands can each have a dedicated key. Theundo command can have a dedicated key and the redo has the same key andis activated only when a quasimode key is also held down.

In general, in another aspect, this invention provides methods andapparatus, including computer program products, implementing and usingtechniques for providing a selection by causing an apparatus to presentcontent to a user, marking particular content to distinguish the markedcontent from other content, the marking being discernible when themarked content is presented to the user, receiving an input from a userrequesting that the marked content be used as a command and using themarked content as a command.

Advantageous implementations can include one or more of the followingfeatures. The marked content can be presented on a display device; andthe marking can be a highlighting of the marked content. The markedcontent can be presented audibly; and the marking can be discernible bya response to a user request to play the marked content. The user inputcan be a tap of a command key. The user input can be an oral command.

In general, in another aspect, this invention provides a user interface,including: means for receiving information from users; means forconveying information to users; a graphic input device; means for usersto separate information conveyed to the interface into at least threeprinciple classes: pointing, content, and commands; means for users todistinguish some subset of the content from the remainder of thecontent. The means for users to separate information conveyed to theinterface into at least three principle classes: pointing, content, andcommands do not require, but may permit, separate modes.

Advantageous implementations can include one or more of the followingfeatures. Commands may be distinguished from other input by a quasimode.Commands may execute when the quasimode is exited. If the name of acommand name or glyph that represents a command is selected and adesignated command key is tapped, the command represented by the name orglyph is executed. If the name of a command name or glyph thatrepresents a command is indicated and a designated command key istapped, the command represented by the name or glyph is executed. Thesequence of characters representing a command may be the same whether inthe form of a menu item, a button, or a typed command. The means todistinguish some subset of the content from the remainder of the contentmay be to create selections, and where when a new selection is createdthe selection that until then had been the new selection is notunselected but becomes the “old selection”, and can be used as aselection by those commands that are designed to affect or use the oldselection. The process of creating old selections may iterate so thatthere is a sequence of older selections, forming a last-in, first-outstack of selections. The old selection may have a distinctive highlightto distinguish it from the new selection. Each selection may have adistinctive highlight and/or label so that its place in the sequence canbe observed by the user. The highlights of older selections may beprogressively lighter in color or have some other readily-perceptiblegradient. Sets of characters or objects can be grouped, that is, madeinto a set (by being selected and the command key used, or by beingclicked on) such that they are all indicated and/or selected or nottogether. A grouped set of characters may represent the name of acommand and clicking on them may cause the command they represent to beexecuted. Selecting an old selection can make it into the new selection,and all selections in the sequence from the previous new selection tothe selection just newer than the selected old selection are decreasedby one in the order. Selecting the old selection may make it into thenew selection and vice versa. There may be a command that interchangesthe current selection and the next most recent selection. When multipleselections geometrically overlap, small motions of the cursor within thearea of their overlap may cause the indication highlight to cyclethrough all the selections. There may be a command that coalesces atleast two of the selections as the new selection. The depth of the stackcan be limited not by any fixed number but only by the size of availablememory. Commands can take any number of selections as arguments, inaccord with the needs of the command. Both content and commands can beselected in order to apply the command to the content. The interface maybe both modeless and monotonous. The interface may be modeless. Theinterface may be monotonous. Material typed without the commandquasimode may become content while material typed in the commandquasimode, and only such typed material, can be interpreted by thesystem as commands. The interface may attach to each file in a system(the main file) a second file, the “information document” withinformation about the main file in order to make the main file moreeasily found based on information about that file, such as the date itwas created, that may not be in the file. Information documents may notthemselves be provided with information documents. One of the commandscan be a “pin” command which fixes the current selection with respect toits position on the display. One of the commands can be a “group”command which applies to characters in text. Grouped text can be treatedas command names.

In general, in another aspect, this invention provides a user interface,including means for receiving information from users; means forconveying information to users; a graphic input device; means for usersto separate information conveyed to the interface into at least threeprinciple classes: pointing, content, and commands; means for users todistinguish some subset of the content from the remainder of thecontent. Textual content is divided by delimiters that are part of atypable character set and which said delimiters can be found by a findcommand in which the pattern is composed entirely of typable characters,and where the delimiters can also be deleted and otherwise treatedexactly as with other characters.

In general, in another aspect, this invention provides a user interfaceincluding means for receiving information from users; means forconveying information to users; means for users to separate informationconveyed to the interface into at least three principle classes:pointing, content, and commands; means for users to distinguish somesubset of the content from the remainder of the content, such that whenany suitable object is pointed to, it is highlighted (“indicated”).

Advantageous implementations can include the following feature. Whenmultiple selections geometrically overlap, the indication highlight maycycle through all the selections at a predetermined rate.

In general, in another aspect, this invention provides a user interfacewhere messages to a user, from whatever source, appear on a visualdisplay to be transparent in whole or in part in order to not obscureinformation underlying them.

Advantageous implementations can include one or more of the followingfeatures. A user can work on the material that appears to underlie thetransparent message as if the transparent message were not there. Atransparent message may disappear when the user resumes work involvingthe information that lies under the message. A transparent message cangradually fade from view with time, or otherwise gradually becomesinvisible. The content of a message can be stored in a message log sothat it can be accessed and read at any later time. The transparentmessage can contain buttons, check boxes, radio buttons, and/or textinput boxes and/or possibly other interactive areas, and may not fade ordisappear until all required user input has been received.

In general, in another aspect, this invention provides a user interfacewhere the functions of Undo and Redo are each on a dedicated key.

In general, in another aspect, this invention provides a user interfacewhere the function of Undo is on a dedicated key and where the functionof Redo is on the same key and activated only when a quasimode key, suchas a Shift key, is also held down.

In general, in another aspect, this invention provides a user interfacewhere Undo and Redo, however invoked, apply to the process of making andadjusting selections as well as to other operations and commands.

In general, in another aspect, this invention provides a user interfacewhere a pattern-matching search proceeds circularly through the documentor searchable entity in which resides the current system focus, and ifno match is found, proceeds to search other documents or searchableentities on the same system, if no match is again found, to search onany resources outside the system to which the system has access, until amatch is found.

Advantageous implementations can include one or more of the followingfeatures. The search may proceed through all documents or searchableentities in the same level of hierarchy in which a document orsearchable entity is embedded, and then, if no match is found, proceedto the next higher level and repeating the process. The concept ofhierarchy may include any structure imposed on information stored on anetwork, whether the structure is nested, in the form of a tree, orotherwise organized. The concept of hierarchy may include any structureimposed on information stored on a network, whether the structure isnested, in the form of a tree, or otherwise organized.

In general, in another aspect, this invention provides a user interfacewith objects and commands implemented such that if a command cannot beapplied to an object because the object is of the wrong data type orformat, the implementation seeks a program, called a “transformer”, thatcan convert the object into a representation of the correct data type orformat, and execute the command.

Advantageous implementations can include one or more of the followingfeatures. A set of transformers available to the user interface may beexamined to determine if there is a sequence of those transformers thatcan convert the object into a representation of the correct data type orformat, and execute the command if there is such a sequence. Any commandcan be applied to any object whether or not the object and command arefrom the same software supplier or were designed to work together. Ifthe system is unable to apply the command in an object, the object maybe left unaffected. When the object is left unaffected, the user may beinformed by a message or other signal that the command had no effect onthe object.

In general, in another aspect, this invention provides a user interfacewherein a typed character is always inserted into the text at the cursorlocation and there is no means for making the typed characterautomatically replace selected text.

In general, in another aspect, this invention provides a graphic inputdevice (GID) designed for a user interface that interprets squeezing orholding of buttons designated for this purpose and which are situated asif to hold or grip the GID as a distinct “grip” signal that the currentselection is to be dragged, that is, to move in parallel with thecursor, for as long as the signal is maintained. By releasing thepressure on the GID or buttons, the user signals the user interface thatthe selection is in the desired location and it no longer follows thecursor.

Advantageous implementations can include one or more of the followingfeatures. The selection may remain selected after it is released. Afirst sending of the grip signal may cause the selection to begin movingin parallel with the cursor and where a second sending of the gripsignal may cause the selection to no longer follow the cursor but toremain stationary. The selection may remain selected after it isreleased.

In general, in another aspect, this invention provides an interfacewhere while pressing a first button makes the apparent magnification ofthe entire display greater, called “zooming in”, and while pressing asecond button makes the apparent magnification of the entire displaysmaller, pulling in additional material from the sides (called “zoomingout”).

Advantageous implementations can include one or more of the followingfeatures. Pressing and holding both buttons may cause the material onthe entire display to move or “pan” as if attached to the cursor,pulling in additional material from the sides as necessary. Helpinformation may be embedded adjacent to and at a small size relative tothe object to be explained and can be accessed by zooming in to theinformation. The object being zoomed into can be a document or Web site,or any other interactive or active object, and when the object reaches acertain size, it may become active without requiring any further useraction. When an active object is zoomed away from, when it reaches acertain size, it may become inactive. The first and second buttons maybe placed on the GID. Instead of pressing a first and second button, theGID can be twisted clockwise to zoom in, and counterclockwise to zoomout. The rotation on the twist can be reversed.

In general, in another aspect, this invention provides an interface thatreceives user input through the user interface. Output is providedthrough the user interface, and all user input received through the userinterface is interpreted as explicitly being separated input into one ofthree classes, namely, pointing input, content input, and command input.

Advantageous implementations can include one or more of the followingfeatures. The information may be separated into classes by delimitersthat are contained within the information. The delimiters may be part ofa typable character set. The delimiters may be deleted and otherwisetreated exactly like other typable characters. The delimiters may befound by a find command. Pointing input may be comprised of user inputconveying a selection of content by the user; content input may becomprised of user input conveying information that has meaning andutility for the user; and command input may be comprised of user inputconveying a signal to the information appliance to perform someoperation. The user interface may include a keyboard, a graphical inputdevice (GID), a mouse, or a microphone to receive user input. The mousemay be a squeeze mouse having one or more buttons that can be pressed,squeezed or held by the user.

The invention can be implemented to realize one or more of the followingadvantages. The overall and cumulative effect of this inventiondecreases learning time, improves user retention of their learning of asystem, increases user satisfaction, decreases frustration, increasesproductivity, and decreases the number of actions required to do a taskthus reducing the danger of repetitive stress injuries (RSI) in manysystems. On the basis of this invention, computers and relatedappliances can be used more easily, more quickly, and more safely thanwith prior art interfaces.

The details of one or more implementations of the invention are setforth in the accompanying drawings and the description below. Otherfeatures and advantages of the invention will become apparent from thedescription, the drawings, and the claims.

DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a schematic block diagram showing one hardware implementationof the HIOS in accordance with the invention.

FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram showing the HIOS in accordance with theinvention.

FIG. 3 is a flow chart showing the process of applying a command to aselection in accordance with the invention.

FIG. 4 is a flow chart showing the process of indication in accordancewith the invention.

FIG. 5 is a schematic diagram showing highlighting of an icon in a priorart system.

FIG. 6 is a diagram showing one implementation of the HIOS in accordancewith the invention.

FIG. 7 is a flow chart showing the process of clicking on an object inaccordance with the invention.

FIG. 8 is a flow chart showing how a command is applied in accordancewith the invention

FIG. 9 is a diagram showing a transparent letters over an opaque text inaccordance with the invention.

FIG. 10 is a flow chart showing a spiral search process in accordancewith the invention.

FIG. 11 is a schematic diagram showing a programmable processing systemthe HIOS in accordance with the invention may be implemented.

FIG. 12 is a schematic view of two implementations of a graphic inputdevice in accordance with the invention.

Like reference symbols in the various drawings indicate like elements.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION Terminology

In order to illustrate the invention with precision, a few definitionsare useful:

“Cognetics” is the engineering applications of cognitive psychology,much as ergonomics is the engineering applications of physiology.

A “gesture” is an uninterruptible sequence of automatic actions such asthose just described.

“Content” is the information that resides in a computer or otherinformation processing device that has meaning and utility for thatsystem's user. Creation or alteration of content is the task the userintends to accomplish with the device. If the user is a writer, thecontent is those writings that are stored in the system. If the user isan artist, graphics are the predominant content of the system. Where thesystem is a computer, the menus, the icons, and other paraphernalia ofthe computer are not content.

A “graphical input device (GID)” is a mechanism for communicatingpositional information, such as a particular location or choice ofobject (which may be content or part of the system) on a display, to asystem. Typical examples are mice, trackballs, lightpens, tablet pens,joysticks, or touchpads. The GID “button” is the principal button on anyGID—for example, the left button on a two-button mouse. In general, thegraphic input device controls the position of a cursor, which is anarrow or other graphic emblem on the display that indicates the system'sinterpretation of where the user is pointing.

A “microphone” herein refers to the use of a microphone as a sound inputdevice used to provide information to the system. A host of otherdevices that can detect human activity, including physical motion suchas with a data glove or video camera or electrical activity such asdirect detection of brain or nerve impulses or waves can also be usedfor generating input and control signals.

A “tap” is the act of pressing and releasing of a key or switch withoutany intervening action. Tap applies only to keys on a keyboard or toother momentary contact switches that, when released, automaticallyreturn to their original position and electrical state.

To “click” is to position the GID, and then to tap the GID button. Theterm is used in expressions such as “click the word ‘alligator’,”indicating that the user is to move the cursor such that it points to“alligator” and then, while the cursor remains stationary, tap the GIDbutton. This operation constitutes “clicking on alligator.” To “drag” isto press the GID button at one location, and then to move the GID beforereleasing the GID button at a new location (this action is sometimescalled “click and drag”). To “double-click” is to position the GID andthen to tap the GID button twice quickly, without any intervening motionof the GID or other user action. (In practice, a small amount of GIDmotion is allowed, because it will usually move slightly when the buttonis pressed.) Triple and higher-order clicks have been used in interfacedesign.

“Highlighting,” as used herein, is adding, by any means, a recognizabledistinction to a displayed object. The function of the highlight is toallow the user to determine, by passive observation, that the system hasrecognized a particular object as having a special status. For sightedusers, the highlight is usually visual. Examples of visual highlightingmechanisms include underlining or applying a stationary or animatedborder to an object. Nonvisual highlighting can be shown, for example,by different choices of voices or spoken inflection or by a tactiledistinction such as a vibration.

Highlighting the single object pointed to as a cursor is moved, withoutany other user action (such as clicking), is referred to herein as“indication.” With indication, the user knows at all times at whatobject the system thinks she is pointing. In too many conventionalsystems, the user must guess at what will be selected or activated whenshe clicks the operations GID button; if her guess is incorrect, shewill have to try again, wasting time and energy. Indication can beespecially valuable when the objects that the user would like to selectare small and close together, when they overlap, or when their limitsare unclear. Indication differs from prior art “rollover” in thatindication specifically shows what object is being pointed to; rolloverconsists taking some arbitrary action when an object is pointed to, andis not used systematically to indicate a potential selection.

Indication allows the user to identify the content that may be affectedby the user's subsequent action, for example, what will be “selected” ifthe user clicks the left mouse button in most conventional systems.Another advantage over prior art systems interfaces lies in the abilityof indication to distinguish objects such as or analogous to icons,drawing elements, or photographs that may overlap, interdigitate, or maybe small and close to one another on the computer screen. As the GID ismoved, or as a function of time while the cursor lingers at one positionor within a small area, or based on keyboard or button presses,different overlapping objects can be indicated. Clicking when thedesired object is indicated allows the user to unambiguously communicateto the system which is meant. Even in situations where the content istext, it is often difficult to determine at what portion of the text theGID is pointing at any given moment.

A “command” is a signal to a computer to perform some operation, usuallyinvolving an operation on the content (such as making a text selectionboldface or sending a selection to a printer) other than accepting input(say, via typing or speaking) and similar operations.

The invention provides a system of indication that is substantiallyuniversal to the interface and uniform in application. In other words,in the HIOS indication almost always occurs and it occurs in aconsistent and predictable fashion. The present invention providesvarious apparatus and methods for providing such a system of indication.

“Selecting,” as used herein, is a process by which a user identifies aset of one or more objects as having a special status that can berecognized by the system, thereby creating what is called “a selection.”Usually, a user creates a selection with the intention of applying acommand to it in the near future. Unlike indication's more transienthighlight, the highlight that signals selection persists even after theuser has moved the cursor away from the selection. Indication may takeplace as the cursor is moved even if a selection has been established.The user may variably create a single-object selection by tapping theGID button, microphone button, or by means of some other signal, whilethe object is indicated. A user can also create a selection by dragginga rectangle or other shape across a set of contiguous objects: Allobjects that intersect the area of the shape become selected. Anotherkind of selection selects all the objects that are totally within thearea of the shape. Selection can be of discrete objects, of geometricalregions of the display, or can be composite, consisting of the union ofdifferent selections. In much of today's software, the user createscomposite selections from a set of smaller selections by first making aninitial selection. Then, with one common method, she presses and holdsshift, and while she is in this quasimode (“quasimode” is defined inmore detail below)—she clicks on additional objects to toggle them intoor out of the selection.

There are several drawbacks to this prior art selection method: First,the command for creating composite selections is invisible and thus itsexistence and behavior must be memorized by the user. Second, it is easyto make errors when setting up a large composite selection; for example,if the user accidentally releases the shift in the middle of the processand clicks on another object, her work in making the complex selectionup to that point is lost. Third, the mechanism is a toggle: The samegesture deselects an object if that object was selected, and selects anobject if that object was not selected. This property can easily createproblems if the user or the computer system is unsure of the object'sinitial state, indeed, users of conventional systems are often seen tohave this problem. There are isolated prior art selection methods thatanswer some of these objections, but none that answer all, and they areconfined to isolated application programs and are not systemic.

Solving the Selection Problems

The HIOS solves the problems with selections, and increases the power ofinterfaces, by providing what is effectively a “stack” of selections.When a selection is made, the previous selection changes state to becomethe “first old selection”. This selection process can be iterated sothat as the user creates new selections, the most recent selectionbecomes the first old selection, the next most recent selection becomesthe second old selection, and, in general, the nth old selection becomesthe n+1st old selection. It is best if the only limitation to the sizeof this selection stack is the amount of available memory. Thehighlighting that signals selection is distinct from and more readilyapparent than that used for indication (if indication is present). Thehighlighting for older selections also makes them clearlydistinguishable from one another. For example, the highlight of olderselections may be of lower visual contrast than newer ones, or analphanumeric designation may accompany old selections so that they canbe readily identified. This is especially useful if the number ofselections becomes large. Alternatively, the selection highlight couldbe animated, in “marching ants” or “marquee” style, with the animationmoving more slowly the older the selection is.

Having old selections permits multiple-argument commands, where thearguments are selections. For example, to interchange two objects itsuffices to find and select the first and then find and select thesecond object and then issue the “exchange” command. Prior art systemsdo not have a natural way of doing this, and one must presently find andselect the first object, issuing first a copy command and then deletingthe first object from the first location, then finding the secondlocation, and then inserting the first object into the second location;then the user selects the second object to be interchanged, using thecopy command and the delete command on the second object, finding forthe second time the location of the first object, and then insert thesecond object. At any point in this process, should the user beinterrupted and have to perform another move (not even an interchange)of a third object, then one or the other of the first two objects beingmoved will be lost (permanently in many conventional systems).

In the case of overlapping selections, the nature of the content and thetask defines the interpretation. In some embodiments, a new selectionsimply is not permitted to include any part of a previous selection; inothers, a new selection that impinges on an old selection causes the oldselection to become unselected. In the preferred implementation, andagain depending on the nature of the content and the task, interchangingtwo overlapping selections would result in two non-overlapping butadjacent selections. For example, if the content was the word BIT, andthe first selection included the letters BI and the second selectionincluded the letters IT, then, upon being interchanged, the result wouldbe ITBI.

The Elementary Actions

The spectrum of elementary actions that a user can perform is aremarkably limited one that also belies the apparent complexity of usinga computer system. From this set of elementary actions, all userinteraction is built. With a keyboard, one can tap keys or press andhold them while performing other actions. With GID, the user can move acursor within the bounds of the display (or displays) on the system, andcan signal using the computer using the speed, direction, andacceleration of the GID. With a GID button, the user can signallocations on the display to which the user is pointing with the cursor.These elementary actions have widely varying semantics depending on theapplication being run.

While most of the foregoing and following is cast in terms of keyboardinput to keep the exposition brief and clear, all of the principlesapply equally well to gestural, sound-controlled, and otherhuman-controlled systems because of the universal nature of human locusof attention, habit formation, and other cognetic principles.

Some other common operations, such as moving content from one locationto another can be broken down (at the implementation level) intocombinations of the above; in this case, for example, motion consists ofa replication followed by a deletion of the original. At the interfacelevel, a command for moving objects would probably be supplied. One waythat commands are invoked is treated below.

Other input information also fits into this paradigm, for example, somegraphic tablets are pressure sensitive and can detect the angle at whichthe pen is held, which results in one or two additional numerical valuesbeing associated with each location to which the user points. Exceptwhen the user is doing freehand drawing, these parameters are rarelyused. Musical keyboards may provide, as inputs to the computer, both thevelocity with which the key is depressed and the pressure with which thekey is being held down after being depressed. There are also joysticksand three-dimensional input devices. Each of these associate a set ofnumbers or a sequence of values with the user actions. This is in no wayfundamentally different than most interaction, which is accomplishedwith a keyboard and a standard, two-dimensional GID. This descriptionwill generally be presented in terms of the standard input and outputdevices; however, the principles extend to more exotic interfacehardware elements and methods. This description will generally bepresented in terms of the standard input and output devices; however,the principles extend to more exotic interfaces.

The Elementary Operations

Although interfaces to prior-art software may seem complex, in realitythe different operations that are performed by the user with theinterface are relatively few and simple if looked at from a differentperspective, one based on elementary user actions. The user performs theelementary actions in various combinations to perform a set ofelementary operations. The elementary operations are performed on“content” (all the material resident in the computer, created or broughtinto the system directly or indirectly by the user, that can be examinedor otherwise operated upon) and are used in nearly every interface.Content consists of “objects” (not necessarily the “objects” of“object-oriented programming”) that have separate meaningfulness in theuser's mind.

There are three elementary operations on content:

-   -   Indication: the displaying of the fact of some subset of the        content being pointed at by a cursor or otherwise being pointed        at by a distinguishing highlight. In a sound-based system, the        highlight might be a special sound or sound quality, and so        forth for other media.    -   Selection: distinguishing some subset of the content by means of        a selection highlight, distinguishable from the indication        highlight. Content is selected primarily so that a command may        be applied to it.    -   Modification: applying a command to a selection or set of        selections with the intent of changing, using, or acting on the        content selected.

There are many ways that content may be modified. Some of the morefundamental modifications of content are:

-   -   generation (modified from empty to nonempty);    -   deletion (modified from nonempty to empty);    -   collection (being formed into a group, and its inverse,        ungrouping);    -   transformation (changed to another data structure or        representation; for example changing a line from red to green or        changing a bit-map into text via optical character recognition);        and    -   replication (a duplicate placed at another location, which can        include external devices such as a printer (printing), a network        (emailing or uploading), a hard disk (storing) or merely        duplicated into another document (copying).

In the system in accordance with the invention, handling the elementaryoperations are part of the internal hardware or software, rather thanbeing reimplemented in multiple software packages, and each of them canalways be invoked in the same way, regardless what objects are operatedon. For the most part, the cognitive differences between presentlyavailable applications lie in how selections are presented and how theuser can operate on them. For example, in a spreadsheet, values arepresented in tabular form, and an operation might consist of changing acolumn without a sum underneath into a column with its sum underneath.In a word processor, text and illustrations are presented in page-layoutform, and a typical operation is to change text from a roman typeface toan italic typeface. In a web-page program, a word processor page mightbe changed into HTML. In a photo-processing program, an image with lowcontrast might be modified into one of higher contrast.

Most operations performed on content can be described in terms of theelementary operations listed above. For example, in many systems, anobject can be queried about its properties (in systems equipped withtwo-button GIDs, the user usually performs this function by a click ofthe right button when the cursor is on the object and the system is inan appropriate state). To “query” is to bring up further information oroptions on the item, but it also can be thought of as an operation onone object that brings into view another, related object. From theuser's point of view, there is no need for any distinction between“operating-system” operations and “application” operations.

That the interfaces of all applications arise from a small set ofelementary operations confirms that the applications themselves, as richand varied as they are from a task-oriented point of view, are not allthat different from one another from an interface-oriented point ofview. This fundamental similarity is exploited by the invention tocreate powerful computer systems of unprecedented simplicity andproductivity.

Text Handling

Another way in which current applications are similar is that nearly allof them require text entry. It is thus worth insuring that texthandling—whether in the small (for example, when the user is enteringthe string on which to execute a find command) or in the large (forexample, when the user is writing a novel), is accomplished with asmooth and efficient set of operations.

Users and the software they use are not perfect; not all text-entrykeystrokes, pen motions, or acts of speech will cause the desiredcharacters to be displayed. Therefore, an important provision of aninterface is that keystrokes can be erased with an immediate tap of thebackspace (or delete) key—with analogous methods for other forms ofinput. Larger changes, such as adding a paragraph, require that the userbe able to select regions and to delete them. Another fundamentalrequirement (except for brief inputs) is that the user be able to movethe cursor to any point in the text and to insert additional characters.In short, whenever text is to be entered, the user expects to haveavailable many of the capabilities of a modern word processor.

Whenever the user is entering text, it is placed it into a document or afield (such as an area provided for entry of a name on a form). Withconventional systems, the rules about what editing functions areavailable change from field to field and from one document type (forexample, a word-processor document) to another (for example, aspreadsheet). The editing rules can change within a single document insystems that allow the document to include portions generated byseparate applications.

One important step in creating an interface in accordance with theinvention for computers and or for computer-like systems, such as a PalmPilot™, is to ensure that the same rules apply whenever text is beingentered, and when editable text is selected. For example, on theMacintosh® computer or in the Windows® operating system, the user cannotspell-check a file name in situ, so if the user is not sure of thespelling of “rendezvous,” and she wants to use that word as a file name,the user will have to guess at the spelling or open a word processor andretype or drag “rendezvous” into that word processor to check it. In theinvention, one spelling checking command suffices for any text, whateverrole that text might be playing at the moment.

There is another interaction of typing and selection that causesproblems in current interfaces. In the system in accordance with theinvention, typing does not replace selected text or cause the currentselection to become unselected. This is the opposite of the commonconvention that typing replaces the current selection, a practice thatoccasionally causes users considerable problems when the new materialunexpectedly overlays text they did not want to omit. The idea thattyping should replace a selection was introduced to save a singlekeystroke: In most editors, when one wishes to replace a block of text,the user simply select some text and then type. Without this convention,the user would select some text, tap the backspace or delete key, andthen enter some text. Currently, all that is eliminated is thebackspace. With the usual convention, the text vanishes at the firstkeystroke and typing is inserted. This happens whether the text to bereplaced was on screen or not and (usually) whether it was a fewcharacters or three quarters of the novel being written; the user may bedeleting text that is 40 pages away from his locus of attention. If theproblem is noticed in time, it can possibly be undone. However, if theuser does not notice the deletion—and there is nothing in conventionalsystems that indicates that text has been deleted beyond the screenchanging to show the page just deleted from (one page of text looks muchlike another, and there's nothing to show that material was deleted)—theuser will lose content and time. The system in accordance with theinvention does not put the user's work at risk; the one saved keystrokein this case of this prior art feature is bought at too great a price—ifeven only one character is lost inadvertently, that character might bepart of a phone number or part of an e-mail address that is cannot beguessed from the remaining text. The interface in accordance with theinvention requires the user to explicitly delete text if he wants todelete text, and does not delete it as a side effect of some otheraction.

Another word-processor feature often considered helpful is the abilityto drag a selection from one place to another in text. However, this“feature” prevents the user from being able to create a new selectionoverlapping the current selection, or to create a selection that is asubselection of the current selection. Another problem that arises fromdragging in text (and also occurs in graphics applications): the userwill sometimes start to drag a selection only to discover that thedestination is not visible on the display, in which case the user has toput the selection back, or into some other place, and change to thecut-and-paste method. In some prior-art systems the material will beginto move when the selection reaches the edge of the screen, in which casethe user can make a long drag work, but it is a slow process and it canbe very hard to find the desired destination. The principle of monotonysuggests that having only one method is preferable. One solution is tonot allow the drag-and-drop method in text. Another solution is toprovide separate quasimodes for selection and dragging, because the usercould then have both selection and drag-and-drop without cognitiveinterference. For example, if the GID had a button that was pressed tomake selections and if it also had a facility, such as a side-mountedbutton, that allowed squeezing the GID (with tactile feedback such as aclick to signal that the squeeze has been registered) to indicate thatthe user has grabbed a selection, then there would be little or noconfusion between the two functions.

Another problem with conventional interfaces is the cut—and—pasteparadigm. Almost every user of a cut—and—paste—based editor hasexperienced the loss of some work when she inadvertently performed asecond cut before pasting the first. When text is deleted it should notdisappear, especially not into an invisible cut buffer. In oneimplementation of the system in accordance with the invention the textappears as the last item in a deletion document that collects deletions.The deletion document is just an ordinary document; it can be treated asordinary text. Of course, material deleted from it ends up at thebeginning of itself. Optionally, a special command deletes in a morepermanent way, which is not undoable, and can be designed to operate asa security feature. In one implementation, each deletion added to thedeletion document is locked. The essential point is that nothingmysterious happens to deleted text and no special command or knowledgeis needed to find the document containing deleted text (beyond having toknow that the plain text words such as “This document contains deletedtext” is in it; the user could type in any phrase she desires to use asa target for this document). Of course, any phrase in the recentlydeleted text can also serve to find it, just as if it had not beendeleted.

Commands

Fundamentally, there are only two kinds of inputs a user makes to acomputer or information appliance: the first kind of input creates ormodifies content directly, the second controls the system. Anyparticular user gesture may be one or the other (and the dividing linemay be drawn differently depending on the user's point of view). Thesecond class of inputs is often referred to as “commands”. A large classof commands involve applying an action to an object. For example, inoperating a word processor the user might select a paragraph and changeits typeface; in this case, the object is the paragraph and the actionis the selection of a new font. When operating thusly, the interface isfollowing the well known “noun-verb” cognetic paradigm.

Some commands, such as undo, are keyboard, voice, or other inputcommands that are not necessarily related to selections. Other commandsact only with respect to the current selection, such as the command thatdeletes the current selection. Certain of these commands on prior artsystems are invoked by single keystrokes, such as the push of a buttonmarked F4; however, the number of keys on a keyboard or keypad is smallrelative to the number of possible commands. Each additional modifierkey—such as shift, alt, command, control, or option—doubles the numberof possible key combinations. A full-chord keyboard (of which thecomputer can recognize any combination of keys) allows an astronomicalnumber of key combinations; for example, a system that uses anythree-key double-quasimode combination on a 110-key keyboard can signalany one of over a million commands with a single gesture. However,extensive use of modifier keys, especially in combination, quicklyreaches finger—twisting, mind—numbing complexity. In addition, thecombinations are rarely memorable or meaningful and do not translatewell to other input means such as voice. Learning arbitrary keyboardcombinations is difficult; requiring such learning places anunacceptable burden on the user's memory. In addition, such commands arenot visible to the user unless the system displays what their effectwill be whenever they can be invoked. Of course, if there are times whenone of these gestures cannot be invoked, or if the gesture has differentmeanings at different times, the system is modal with respect to thatgesture—giving rise to a different set of problems and errors whichoccur when the user does not know what mode in which the system iscurrently operating. Avoidance of such modal behavior has long beenrecognized as a goal of interface design.

If the system is divided into applications, such that a particularcommand can be reused but is given different meanings in differentapplications, the number of commands that a user can invoke for a givennumber of key combinations is increased, but reuse of commands byapplications that assign those commands different meanings causes theuser to make mode errors. Varying the meanings of a gesture can alsoplace an unnecessarily heavy burden on a user's memory. This burden ispartially relieved in prior art systems by menus, although the userstill has to remember in which menu the command he seeks is hidden (hemay have to first recall which application contained the desiredcommand, especially if several applications have similar capabilities).This process of looking through menus is sometimes trivial, but it canbe frustrating, especially if the command the user seeks is a fewsubmenus deep and if what was to the designer the obvious way toorganize the menus is not obvious to the user.

Conventional desktop GUIs are a compound of at least two distinctinterfaces, a relatively visible and learnable but time-consumingmenu-based system and an incomplete keyboard- or microphone-basedcollection of hard-to-learn and unmemorable shortcuts. Both thesemethods have inherent drawbacks that may be avoided with the invention.

The invention provides a system for invoking commands that is as fastand physically simple to use as typing a few keystrokes and that makesthe commands easier (and faster) to find than does a menu system. Itavoids duplicating the dual method used in most popular GUIs thatincludes both a slow menu—based system and an inscrutable set ofkeyboard shortcuts.

The invention also provides improved methods and apparatus for enteringreceiving, recognizing and executing commands input by a user to acomputer system. The invention provides a simple, flexible method forexecuting commands that is universal across the entire interface,regardless of context.

In one implementation of the invention, the user enters commands bytyping and selecting them or by selecting existing text representing thecommand and then pressing a dedicated or assigned command key. Forexample, to execute a print command, the user simply types the text“print,” selects it with the GID and taps the command key. In anotherimplementation, the word or graphics representing the command aregrouped so that they merely need be indicated for a tap of the commandkey to invoke them. Alternatively, a system could require that thecommand be selected prior to tapping the command key. In anotherimplementation or along with other implementations, the user can holddown the command key to establish a command quasimode, much as one nowholds down a shift key for typing capital letters, while typing the textrepresenting the command. When the user releases the command key, thecommand is executed. In any of these implementations, a further optionalaspect of the system recognizes the form of the content upon which thecommand is to be executed and, if the form is not appropriate to thecommand, the system will apply a transformer (a program that modifiesthe data type so as to make the data operable on by the command) to thecontent, execute the command on the transformed content and can, forthose commands where it is appropriate and possible to do so, apply aninverse transformer to return the content to its original form after thecommand has successfully executed.

Undo and Redo

The inevitability of habit formation discussed above also hasimplications for command execution. For example, computer systems that,before they will perform an irreversible act—such as deleting afile—ask, “Are you sure?” are commonplace. The user then must type, “Y”for “Yes” or an “N” for “No” in response to the question. The idea isthat, by requiring one confirm a decision, the system will give the usera chance to correct an otherwise irrecoverable error. Unfortunately, onecan readily make an accidental deletion even when this kind ofconfirmation is required. Because errors are relatively rare, a userwill usually type “Y” after giving any command that requiresconfirmation. Due to the constant repetition of the action, typing “Y”after deleting soon becomes habitual. Instead of being a separate mentaloperation, typing the “Y” becomes part of the delete-file action; thatis, a user does not pause, check his intentions, and then type the “Y”.The computer system's query, intended to serve as a safety measure, isrendered useless by habituation; it serves only to complicate the normalfile-deletion process. The key idea is that any confirmation step thatelicits a fixed response soon becomes useless.

A more effective strategy employed by the invention is to allow users to“undo” an erroneous command, even if they have performed interveningactions since issuing that command. A universally applicable pair ofundo and redo commands is provided, for which the only limitation to thenumber or levels of undo permitted is that due to available storage.Undo and redo is also pervasive, applying to any operation where undoingand redoing is logically possible. They are also—again, as far as islogically possible—inverse operations. Undo followed by redo (and redofollowed by undo) will cause no change to the content. Obviously, thecommands do not apply to themselves. Undo and redo operators arefundamental and are of sufficient importance to have their own dedicatedkey in the preferred implementation, where redo is implemented asshift-undo, with the key cap clearly marked with the words “undo” and“redo.” In one embodiment, a command that permits undoing and redoinginto a newly created region that consists of all the documents the undotakes the system through allows for recovery of old work without losingwhat has been done since.

Abolition of Modes

“Modes” are a significant source of errors, confusion, unnecessaryrestrictions, and complexity in interfaces. Many of the problems modescause have been widely recognized; nonetheless, making systems trulymodeless is an underused tactic in interface design. As defined above, agesture is a sequence of human actions that is completed automaticallyonce set in motion. While, to use our example, typing a common word—suchas “hello”—is a single gesture for an experienced typist (and a singlespoken gesture as well) the typing of each letter would be a separategesture for a beginning typist (whereas to someone unfamiliar withEnglish's sounds might utter each syllable as a gesture: heh-low).

Most interfaces have multiple interpretations of a given gesture. Forexample, at one moment, tapping the return key inserts a returncharacter into the text, whereas at another time, tapping return causesthe text typed immediately prior to that tap to be executed as acommand. Modes are manifested by how an interface responds to gestures.For any given gesture, the interface is in a particular “mode” if theinterpretation of that gesture is constant. When that gesture has adifferent interpretation, the interface is in a different mode.

A simple example may be useful to further illustrate the concept ofmodes. A flashlight (assumed to be in good operating condition) that isoperated by a push-button toggle can be either on or off. Pressing thebutton turns the light on if the present state is off, and turns thelight off if the present state is on. The two states of the flashlightcorrespond to two modes in the interface: In one mode, tapping thebutton turns the light on; in the other mode, tapping the button turnsthe light off. If the user does not know the present state of theflashlight, he cannot predict what a press of the flashlight's buttonwill do. If the flashlight is deep in a duffel bag where it cannot beseen, one cannot check by feel if it is off or on (assume that it doesnot get detectably warm). If the user's intent is to make sure that itis off, it will have to be taken out and inspected. The inability todetermine the state of the flashlight is a classic problem caused by aninterface that has modes; one cannot tell by inspecting the controllingmechanism what operation needs to be perform to accomplish a given goal.If one operates the controlling mechanism without separately verifyingthe state of the system, one cannot predict the effect that theoperation will have.

Similarly, if the current state of the interface is not the user's locusof attention, and if an interface has modes, the user will sometimesmake errors because his locus of attention is not the current mode.Thus, a human-machine interface is “modal” with respect to a givengesture when (1) the current state of the interface is not the user'slocus of attention, and (2) the interface will execute one among severaldifferent possible responses to the gesture, depending on the system'scurrent state.

Modes also restrict a user's scope of activity. If a gesture g invokesaction a in mode A, and action b in mode B, then, if the user is in modeB and wants to invoke action a, he must first leave mode B and set theinterface into mode A. Only then can the gesture g be used to invoke a.The division of an interface into bounded sets of functions is anecessary consequence of modes; the set of states where the gesture ghas a particular interpretation can be called the “range” of g. Softwaresold as an application—for example, a spreadsheet—usually consists ofone or more overlapping ranges. Grouping commands into separate ranges(what are usually called “applications”) can be an aid to understandingand using a complex interface, but there are ways to organize aninterface that are less restrictive than are modes.

Modes that vanish after a single use cause fewer errors than those thatpersist, if for no other reason than that they have less time to causemistakes. If one uses a temporary mode immediately after setting it, thefact that one set the mode may not have evaporated from short-termmemory, and a mode error will not be made. One may even incorporatesetting the mode as part of the gesture that carries out the command,which makes the situation completely nonmodal for that user. However, ifthe interface mode for a command is set, and—prior to using thecommand—the user is delayed or distracted, then a mode error is likelyto occur.

Quasimodes

There is a significant difference between using the caps lock key totype capital letters and holding the shift key to the same effect. Inthe first case, a mode is established; in the second case, it is not.Experiments have confirmed that the act of holding down a key, pressinga foot pedal, and any other form of physically holding an interface in acertain state does not induce mode errors. Activating and holding acontrol while performing another user action has been referred to as a“spring-loaded mode” and a “spring-locked mode” in the literature. Thisterminology is inappropriate because no physical spring may be involved,the key or button is not locked, and holding a control does not causemode errors. The phrase “user-maintained mode” for this action isaccurate but makes it difficult to frame a corresponding adjective.Accordingly, the term “quasimode” and its adjectival form, “quasimodal,”are used herein to denote modes that are maintained kinesthetically.

Quasimodes are very effective in eliminating modes; however, theexcessive use of quasimodes can lead to absurd interface conventionsthat require the user to remember dozens of arbitrary commands. Thelimit for the number of effective quasimodes is probably between fourand seven. But one quasimode can solve a multitude of varied problems.

A typical problem that is readily solved by the use of quasimodes occurswhen an interface presents the user with a one-of-n set of choices. TheMacintosh's pull-down menus are an example. In this application ofquasimodes, the user presses and holds down the graphic input devicebutton when, on the name of the menu, the other choices appear for aslong as the button is held down. The cursor is then moved to the desireditem and released on that item to make the menu choice.

Another use of quasimodes is to cycle through a set of options. As longas the cycle starts on the same element in the set and proceeds in thesame order (and so long as there are not too many elements), then afixed number of taps chooses the option. For example, in the design ofthe prior art Canon Cat system, the user could change a selection to anyof four paragraph styles—left aligned, centered, right aligned, andjustified. Paragraph styles were chosen by repeatedly tapping the keythat had the legend “STYLE” on its front. To access a key with a frontlegend on the Cat, the user held down a special shift key that wasmarked (on its top) “Use Front”. In general, the Use Front key allowedthe user to execute the function indicated by the legend on the front ofa key. Because paragraph style was a quasimode (Use Front had to be helddown while tapping the paragraph style key), the Cat knew how many timesthe key had been tapped. As a consequence, the user soon learned thatone tap left-aligned the selection, two taps right-aligned theselection, and so forth. Had the software cycled from wherever the userlast left off (as many interfaces do), there would have been no way ofmaking the use of the paragraph style command habitual; the user alwayswould have had to look at the display to know what was happening.

Fundamentally, there are only two kinds of inputs the user makes to acomputer or information appliance: inputs that create content or inputsthat control the system. In the invention, quasimodes (other than theusual Shift key) are generally reserved for control functions.Operations performed when no quasimode is engaged create content.

Monotony

Designers of interfaces often present users with a choice of methods.For example, there may be both a menu item and a keyboard shortcut thatexecute the same command. In most prior art word processors a user canmove a contiguous portion of the text by either the three steps ofselecting, cutting, and pasting; or by the two steps of selecting anddragging; and the selection process itself can be invoked in more thanone way. The user has a smorgasbord of methods.

One justification for having multiple methods to do a given task is thatsome users prefer one method and other users prefer a different method.For example, one user might be a novice who finds menus easier to learnalthough another user might be an expert who would rather keep her handson the keyboard and issue commands by typing them. Another justificationis that one method, for example selecting, cutting, and pasting, isuseful between distant portions of a document and the other method,selecting and dragging, is effective only when the source anddestination are both visible on the display. Another reason for aplurality of methods is that each of them is sanctioned by custom, andthe developers felt that it was wise to accommodate as many previouslydeveloped skills as possible. None of these justifications issatisfactory.

The cognetic term “monotonous,” is used herein to describe an interfacefeature which provides only one way to accomplish a task Monotony is thedual of modelessness in an interface. A modeless interface is one wherea given user gesture has one and only one result: Gesture g alwaysresults in action a. However, there is nothing to prevent a secondgesture, h, from also resulting in action a. A monotonous interface isone where any desired action has only one means by which it may beinvoked: Action a is invoked by gesture g and is invoked in no otherway. An interface that is completely modeless and monotonous has aone-to-one correspondence between cause (gesture) and effect (actions).The more monotony an interface has (for a given task space), the easierit is for the user to develop automaticity, which, after all, isfostered by not having to make decisions about what method to use.

When one has to choose between methods the locus of attention is nolonger the task and temporarily becomes the decision about methodsitself. This is a primary reason for choosing to design a monotonoussystem. If the conditions for making the decision are sufficiently clearand distinct, then the path the user takes in each case can becomehabitual and he have monotonized the situation. An efficient monotonoussolution gains benefits including ease of learning, simplicity ofimplementation, minimization of documentation, and lowered maintenancecosts. Monotony does not mean that the same content cannot be arrived atin many ways, but that there should not be multiple gestures to invokethe same command.

The inventor believes that an interface that is, insofar as possible,both modeless and monotonous—all other design features being of at leastnormal quality for a modern interface—would be extraordinarily easy andpleasant to use. A user would be able to develop an unusually highdegree of trust in his habits. The interface would, from these twoproperties alone, tend to fade from the user's consciousness, allowinghim to give his full attention to the task at hand. Many of the detailsof the invention aid in the creation of monotonous systems.

Noun-Verb Design and Closure

In the HIOS, the well-established preference for “noun-verb” design(wherein one chooses he object to act on before choosing the action)over “verb-noun” design (where one chooses the action and then specifieswhat is to be acted upon) has been employed. Verb-noun designs tend tobe modal, because once the verb is selected, the user is in a mode wherethe next object selected will be acted upon. In contrast with prior-artsystems, where noun-verb design has been a desideratum to be appliedlocally, it is here the basis underlying almost all interaction. Inparticular, that nearly all tasks are accomplished by choosing aselection and then a command constrains interaction to the preferrednoun-verb method. Another aspect of this is the use of “closure”.Cognitive psychology tells us that preparing in advance for an act isdifficult but that choosing an immediate action is easier. For example,a Print dialog box may have the user make a choice of whether to printthe entire document or just the current selection by means of havingcheck boxes or radio buttons. Once thus set up, a click of the PRINTbutton brings closure to the operation. However, the user, seekingclosure, often forgets to set the choice and just PRINTS, only todiscover that they have printed the wrong object. If the system had nocheck boxes or radio buttons but only two launch buttons “PRINTDOCUMENT” and “PRINT SELECTION” then the user would be able to make thechoice at the time of closure, when just what is to be printed is hislocus of attention, when closure demands that something be done, andwhen the fact that there is noun-verb design means that the act comeslast. In general, the HIOS uses this method, improving upon it by usingthe command mechanism described above rather than dialog boxes. Ofcourse, in this particular example, in the HIOS one is always printing aselection, but the principle applies elsewhere.

Searching

Further reduction in mode errors and a greater unity can be obtained byunifying cursor motion in text, searching the local system, andsearching over networks. This is accomplished by extending the prior artincremental search methods into a spiral expanding search method. Butsearching itself in conventional systems violates cognetic principles.

A string is a sequence of characters; ordinary English words andsentences are examples of strings. String searches look through a(usually lengthy) string, called the “text,” for an instance of a(usually brief) string that the user specifies, called the “pattern.”Each occurrence of a substring of the text that matches the pattern iscalled a “target.” For example, if a user of a computer system wishes tofind where the user has written of a cat called Little Tatsu in a longletter stored on the computer system, the user can search for thepattern “Little Tatsu.” The user may also chose to use a briefer patternsuch as “Tatsu.”

A match may be exact; it may be case-independent; or it may representsome other relationship between the pattern and the target—they mightrhyme, for example. A commonly used matching criterion is that lowercaseletters in the pattern match either uppercase or lowercase letters inthe text, but that uppercase characters in the pattern match onlyuppercase characters in the text. Searches usually start from thecurrent cursor location in a document and continue forward through thetext of the document. In most conventional systems, a modal userpreference setting can direct the search to proceed backwards throughthe text.

Interfaces to searches are typically based on one or the other of twosearch interface strategies. The most common strategy is the delimitedsearch, found in most word processors. In a typical delimited search,the user enters a mode in which typing (or other methods of text input)is regarded not as text but as a pattern. This is usually accomplishedby employing a dialog box containing a field into which the user canenter characters. After summoning the dialog box, the user types thepattern, followed by a delimiter, which is usually a character (such asthe “return” character) that is not permitted to occur in the pattern.In most dialog boxes, the user may also delimit the pattern by using agraphical input device (such as a mouse) to click a button with a labelsuch as “OK,” “Search,” “Find,” or “Find Next.” When a target is foundin the text, the target is selected, and the cursor is placedimmediately at the beginning of the selection.

The less common conventional search approach is the incremental search,a popular example of which is found in EMACS, an editor used with theUNIX operating system. In most implementations of incremental searchesthe user first summons a dialog box that contains a field where the usercan enter a pattern. When the user types the first character of thepattern, however, the system uses this character alone as a completepattern, and immediately begins to search for the first instance of thatcharacter in the chosen search direction. If an instance of that firstcharacter is found before the next character of the pattern is typed,the instance is selected and the cursor placed immediately after the endof the selection. If the next character of the pattern is typed beforean instance is found, then that character is added to the pattern andthe search continues, now looking for an instance of the now-extendedpattern. This method is repeated as each character is added to thepattern.

Deleting a character from an incremental search pattern (using thebackspace or delete key) typically returns the search to thepreviously-found instance that matched the pattern, as it was before thedeleted character had been added to the pattern. The user can then addto the pattern, and the search continues without the user losing thesearch already accomplished on the partial pattern. Such a search,denoted “leap”, is described in U.S. Pat. No. 4,806,916, entitled,“Computer display with two-part cursor for indicating loci of operation”and U.S. Pat. No. 5,019,806 entitled “Method and apparatus for controlof an electronic display.”

Incremental searching has a number of advantages over delimitedsearching. Incremental searching wastes less of a user's time: Thesearch begins when the first character of the pattern is typed thesystem does not wait until the pattern is complete. With a delimitedsearch, the computer waits for the user to type the entire pattern anddelimit it, after which it is the user who waits while the computer doesthe search. When using a delimited search the user must guess,beforehand, at how much of a pattern the computer needs to distinguishthe desired target from other, similar targets; with an incrementalsearch the user can tell when the user has typed enough to disambiguatethe desired instance because the target has appeared on the display.Thus, as soon as the user sees that the user has reached the pointdesired, the user can stop entering the pattern. If the user types a fewtoo many letters of the pattern (in the case where the hand is quickerthan the search), the pattern will still match and the cursor will stayapproximately where the user wanted. If the user mistypes a pattern in adelimited search, the user must wait until the search for the incorrectpattern is complete (or, at best, must operate some mechanism forstopping the search) before the user can correct the error. In a largetext, the search can take a considerable period of time. In awell-implemented incremental search, the user can backspace at any timeand be returned to the last match found. Because backspacing after anerror is habitual, the process of correcting an error is very fast, andthe search stops immediately. The user can also resume the search bytyping the correct character. It is an important cognetic principle thatthe habits formed when typing or otherwise supplying text are the samewhether that input is being made to content or to a search pattern.

Another advantage of an incremental search approach is that, as the userenters the pattern, the system provides constant feedback as to theresults of the search. With a delimited search, the user does not findout if the pattern is suitable (or even if the pattern was typedcorrectly) until the pattern is fully entered and a search attempt hasbeen made.

Almost all conventional interface-building tools (such as theJAVASCRIPT® and VISUAL BASIC® tools) make it easy to implement delimitedsearches and difficult or impossible to implement incremental searches.

Building a pattern incrementally allows the user to adjust the patterninteractively during the search, which leads the user to improve theuser's search strategies through the feedback received. Even building aBoolean search pattern is made more effective when the early results ofthe pattern appear as the user adds to the pattern's specificity.

If an instance of the pattern does not occur in the text, then thesearch fails. Many conventional systems cease operating in this event,and remain unusable until a particular key—typically enter or return—ispressed or a particular on-screen button is clicked. A modal message isplaced on the display to let the user know that the user must make therequired obeisance before he or she will be allowed to continue usingthe computer. In multi-display systems, or if the screen is visuallybusy, this message may be nowhere near the user's locus of attention.The user may not notice the message at all. It then seems to the userthat the computer will not respond to the keyboard; it will seem to theuser as if the system has crashed. In an incremental search, it isclear, without any special indication, that a search has failed; thecursor returns to its original location and additional keystrokes do nothave any effect. This turns out to be a good indication that the searchhas failed.

Another drawback of delimited searches is that the delimiter that isused to end the pattern cannot be typed into the pattern. Often, otherdelimiters are excluded as well. For example, conventional wordprocessors may not allow a return in a search pattern at all, mayrequire the user to enter a special string such as “^r” or “\\”, or mayrequire the user to use a special dialog box with a pulldown menu ofdelimiters. In a quasimodal search, any character that can be typed orentered can be part of a pattern without the user having to learn aspecial method for inserting that character into the pattern.

Spiral Searching

In conventional GUIs, both delimited and incremental searches areinitiated modally by means of a dialog box. At least one priorincremental search techniques, referred to here as LEAP™ searching, ismodeless. In one implementation of LEAP searching, there are two LEAPkeys included on the keyboard used by the system, one of which searchesforward from the present position in the document, and one of whichsearches backwards. Pressing a LEAP key puts the user into a quasimode;once in this quasimode, the user can enter a pattern. In anotherimplementation, the search quasimode is signaled by holding down abutton on a microphone while the pattern is given vocally. Most of thisdiscussion has been in terms of the most common use of searching, thatis, with keyboard input, however the principles hold with other forms ofinput. For example, the search quasimode can also be establishedvocally.

With conventional delimited and incremental searches, when a pattern isnot found in a specified document or group of documents, the searchterminates. A message or sound is often given to indicate that thepattern was not found, however, in accordance with the principles statehere, the message should not establish a mode. Spiral searching can beimplemented using voice control technology. For example, a microphonecan be provided having a switch, such as a spring-loaded, return tocenter rocker switch that can be set to one position to initiate aforward search and to a second position to initiate a backwards search.After the user speaks a character of the search pattern, the characteris added to the current search pattern and a search of the currentsearch domain is initiated. Alternatively, the search can be initiatedafter the user has spoken an entire search pattern, eithercharacter-by-character or as whole words or a phrase. Whenever amatching target is located, the matching target can be displayed and/oraudibly indicated to user (for example, by having the system say thesentence in which the target was found).

An expanding spiral process can also be used to search the World WideWeb. For example, a user can initiate a search that proceeds circularlythrough an initial web site. Then, the search proceeds to search relatedweb sites (for example, as defined by a web-categorizing service such asYAHOO!® or GOOGLE™) until the search has searched the user's own machineand the entire largest network to which the user is attached.

Visibility

Whether a product is a handheld two-way radio or a computer's desktop,it is not always clear what functions are available, what they do, orhow they are accessed. A user should be able to use her senses to easilydiscover both what abilities are available and how they are to beoperated.

An interface feature is “visible” if it either is currently accessibleto a human sense organ (usually the eyes, although this discussionapplies also to other sensory modalities) or was so recently perceivedthat it has not yet faded from short term memory. If a feature is notvisible, it is said to be “invisible.” If an interface forces the userto memorize the fact that a feature exists, then that feature isinvisible. If the user is forced to root around in the interface until,by luck and perseverance, he comes upon a sequence of actions thatactivates a feature, then such a feature is not visible. If one has touse a help system to discover how to perform an operation, then thecontrols for that operation are invisible. Many computer games are,essentially, undocumented interfaces in which the controls or theirmapping to desired effects, are invisible. Add documentation and thesegames become trivial. Most people do not want to play games when theyare trying to get work done. It is, therefore, up to the designer of aninterface to make every feature of a product visible.

In conventional systems when an object is moved between a first and asecond location which are not both displayed (and sometimes even whenthey are both displayed) it is often necessary to begin by removing theobject from its first location, whereupon it resides in an invisible“buffer”. One must then move the cursor to the second location and use acommand that places the contents of the buffer at that location. If theuser is interrupted or forgets for some other reason that an object isin the buffer and tries to move a second object, the first object can belost, primarily because it is not visible. In the invention, an objectis moved without its being invisible at any time or the system everbeing in mode where it can be lost. The method is as described forexchanging objects in the section on “selection” except that a “move”command rather than an “exchange” command is given.

In designing to accommodate visibility, each function and the method ofoperating it would be apparent (to most people in the culture for whichit is intended) by merely looking at it. A control that has thisattribute has come to be called an “affordance.” If a knob such as isused in volume controls is placed on a product, people will attempt toturn it. If something that looks like a pushbutton is provided, peoplewill push it. Whether a feature is or is not an affordance depends onthe experience and background of the people who will be using theproduct, and the context in which the feature appears.

One problem that combines the problems of modes and a lack of visibilityin conventional interfaces are “dialog boxes”, also called “messageboxes”. These allow the system to communicate warnings to and askquestions of a user. While in general their use should be avoided asthey interrupt the user, there are some circumstances in which they maybe useful. Typically, a message box is a rectangular user interfaceelement in which text and/or graphics are displayed along with a userinterface control (such as button). The user must actuate the userinterface control in order to dismiss (that is, remove from the display)the message box. Such message boxes are typically “opaque.” In otherwords, when a conventional message box is displayed on a display of acomputer, the message typically obscures the user's view of at least aportion of what was previously displayed. Also, the user typicallycannot perform any other operation with the system or the applicationthat generated the message box until the user dismisses the message boxby actuating the user interface control. Thus the usual gestures do notwork, often surprising the user, but in any case potentially leading tomode errors. For example, word processors typically include a “find”command that a user can invoke to search for a string of characters inan open document. Typically, if the word processor is unable to find thestring in the document, the word processor will display a message box tothat effect. Such a message box typically includes message text (forexample, “Word has finished searching the document. The search item wasnot found.”) and a user interface control (for example, an “OK” button)for dismissing the message box. Once such a message box is displayed,the user typically cannot continue editing the open document until theuser has dismissed the message box by clicking on the “OK” button (orusing a keyboard equivalent to clicking on the “OK” button). Also, itcan happen that the box obscures the very item the user was seeking tofind.

Another common operation that conventional interfaces perform iseliciting a response or information from a user. One conventionalapproach to doing this is to display a “dialog box.” A dialog box issimilar to a message box in that a dialog box typically displays textand/or graphics. The text and/or graphic, however, typically elicitssome sort of response from the user. For example, the text may ask theuser a question or request that the user enter some information. Such adialog box typically includes one or more user interface controls (forexample, buttons, check boxes, selection lists, and/or text fields) thatthe user can manipulate in order to provide a response to the system.For example, such a dialog box may include a text field into which theuser can type information or a button on which the user can click inorder to respond to a question.

As with message boxes, dialog boxes are typically opaque and require theuser to actuate one of the user interface controls (or use a keyboardequivalent) in order to dismiss the dialog box and continue working. Forexample, a common feature included in conventional word processors isthe ability to check the spelling of a set of words selected from adocument. After checking the spelling of the selected words, it iscommon for the word processor to display a dialog box informing the userthat the word processor has finished checking the selected words andasking the user if the user would like to continue checking spelling inthe rest of the document. The dialog box typically contains twobuttons—one labeled “YES” and one labeled “NO.” The user can click onthe “YES” button to command the word processor to check spelling in therest of the document or click on the “NO” button to dismiss the dialogbox without checking the rest of the document. Also, when the systemdetects what it perceives to be a misspelled word, the system typicallydisplays an opaque dialog box notifying the user of that fact andprompts the user to indicate if (and how) the user would like to correctthe flagged word. However, to know whether the spelling of the flaggedword is correct, the user may need to see the context in which the wordappears, for example, to determine if the word “their” or “there” shouldbe used. If the opaque dialog box happens to be displayed so as to coverup the context in which the flagged word appears in the document, theuser must first dismiss the dialog box and then fix the error manually.

Thus, with conventional opaque message boxes and dialog boxes, at leasta portion of the display is typically obscured by the message or dialogbox. Also, the user typically must take some additional action—beyondmerely continuing to do what the user was doing before the box wasdisplayed—to dismiss the message or dialog box. The transparent messagebox solves most of these problems by allowing the user to both see andto click on items that are visually “beneath” the scrim-like message.The operation of the system does not change, and the user is not in amode. In addition, less of, or none of, the existing view is renderedinvisible. In the HIOS, the content of all such messages are, in anycase, stored. Once the user has clicked on a message box button, clickedthrough it, or otherwise continued to work, the message box candisappear either all at once, or gradually, or vanish in some othermanner that would be apparent to anybody skilled in interface design oranimation arts.

Abolition of the Desktop

A metaphor that permeates personal computers (and derivativetechnologies) is that there is a central, neutral dispatch area, ordesktop, from which the user can launch a variety of applications. Whencomputers are turned on, most of them present the desktop, although someof them can be set to launch a fixed set of applications. When the userquits an application, he is usually returned to the desktop. Thisinterface strategy is inefficient. The reason is straightforward: Incurrent, desktop-based, systems the user must always navigate to thetask, however if the user was always placed in a task, preferably beingreturned to the last task he was involved with, then in those cases(which are often in the majority) where he wishes to return to the task,no navigation (with its attendant effort and time) is required. If theuser has to invoke a different task, this is no worse than the desktopmethod. Thus, in the worst case, the method of not returning to thedesktop is no worse than the desktop, and in all other cases it isbetter. Also, observe that the users tasks do not get accomplished inpresent art desktops, but in applications. Time spent at the desktoplevel in present art systems is overhead, and its elimination increasesproductivity. The desktop is logically and technologically unnecessary.

Eliminating Conventional File Names/File Structure

Aside from the real limits of the hardware, the interface in accordancewith the invention is implemented to minimize fixed length limits.Techniques such as dynamic memory allocation, hashing, and others areavailable to the designer of ordinary skill to avoid softwareimplementation limitations.

This consideration applies to the concept of file names. From the user'sperspective, a file name is just a handle with which to grab a file.Long experience in the computer arts has taught that file names do notwork as one would expect; they are an impediment when the user wants tosave and near to futile when the user wants to find. File names arebothersome when the user is about to save work because the user has tostop in the middle of his activity, which is trying to store work away,and invent a file name. Creating names is an onerous task: the user isrequired to invent, on the spot and in a few moments, a name that isunique, memorable, and fits within the naming conventions of the systembeing used. Furthermore, at that moment, the question of a file name isnot the locus of attention: preserving the work is. File names are alsoa nuisance when one has to retrieve a file. The name thought up wasprobably not particularly memorable, and probably forgotten after a fewweeks (or less).

Having to name files increases the mental burden on the user. Giving afile a name does nothing more than to add a few characters to the file,and the user is required to remember the file by that one tiny portionand by nothing else. This is one of the major horrors visited upon usersby conventional computer systems. Many information appliances have alsoadopted this methodology.

In the invention, there is no distinction between a file name and afile. A human mind can more effectively use a fast, whole-text searchengine, so that any word or phrase from the file can serve as a key toit. An unlimited-length file name is a file. The content of a text fileis its own best name.

Graphics and sound files do often require names, but as explained below,improved navigation as provided in the invention's use of a zoominginterface avoids the memory burden that traditional file structuresimpose for non-text files. Aside from non-text files, given a fastwhole-text search, file names—one whole species of unnecessary entitiescan be eliminated. With the removal of file names go all the mechanismsfor dealing with file names, such as directories of file names, rulesfor editing file names, and syntactic restrictions on file names. Whenfile names are eliminated, a significant mental burden and much internalmachinery—machinery that is currently part of what the user has to learnand what programmers have to implement—vanishes.

For users who insist on a system that looks like conventional filestructures, there can be a command that creates an “informationdocument” or an extra page at the end of each document when the documentis selected and the command applied. The information document or pagecontains information such as the date and time the document was createdor modified; a revision history; the length of the first document; orother information of value. The preferred implementation of this commandacquires and stores the necessary information automatically for theuser. A command is optionally provided for retrieving this information.

Another source of organization, one that is easier to learn and to usethan traditional file systems, comes from the inherent hierarchicalstructure of many natural languages: Words are separated by spaces.Sentences—sequences of words—are separated by one of a small number ofdelimiters, followed by a space (in English, these delimiters includeperiods, question marks, and exclamation points). Paragraphs—sequencesof sentences—are separated by at least one explicit return character.Explicit page characters (page breaks) separate chapters (or whatever auser wishes to call the next level of organization).

In the system in accordance with the invention, page breaks are treatedas characters and, unlike in most conventional systems, they behave—interms of insertion, deletion, and searching—just as any other charactersdo. As with return characters, there may be implicit page breaks toaccommodate the fixed length of physical pages, but these are not partof the content.

The system of the invention does not stop here in the hierarchy as manyconventional systems do. Documents are organized as a sequence of pagesseparated by document characters, each of which is typable, searchable,and deletable just as was any other character. In variousimplementations, higher delimiters, such as folder and volumecharacters, and even further ones, such as section and librarydelimiters (one can elaborate endlessly in this way) may be provided.For example, a set of two consecutive document characters makes a finedelimiter for sets of documents. If more levels of organization areneeded, three or four consecutive document characters could be used asdelimiters. It can be easier to repeatedly tap the document key, evenfour times, than to type such rarely-used keys as folder, volume, andlibrary. This convention also prevents an explosion of new keys on thekeyboard; it is important for all delimiter characters to have dedicatedkeys, for otherwise, they would not behave as do all other typablecharacters.

Because the various separator characters behaved exactly as do all othercharacters, there is no need to teach users how to do searches for them.If an individual insists on having explicit document names, he can adoptthe personal convention of placing the desired names immediatelyfollowing document characters. To find a document with the name Dogs ofAsia, the user would search for a string that began with a documentcharacter followed by Dogs of Asia. Such a search would ignore allinstances of Dogs of Asia except for those used as document names. Ifthe user wanted a directory, there could be a command that wouldassemble a document comprising all instances of strings consisting of adocument character, followed by any other characters, up to andincluding the first return or higher delimiter.

Eliminating hierarchical file structures does not mean that the user hasto give up structuring his stored information. There is nothing thatprevents the user from creating tables of contents and indexes, orputting all his letters to Uncle Albert and Aunt Agatha on consecutivepages. There is nothing to prevent the user from even putting a headingpage (just another document), labeled “Letters to Uncle Albert and AuntAgatha,” in front of them. If that is done, the user has created, ineffect, a file name, but without the requirement of a special mechanismin the software. The user can create, if wished, a hierarchical filestructure of his own devising. Structure, as the user chooses to createit, is part of his content, not part of the interface. Instead of afile-finding facility, the user simply employs the general searchmechanism to find the file names he has created.

With the system in accordance with the invention, the user can place afolder name as a document in front of a number of collected files; canplace a volume name in front of a bunch of collected folders. (Thepattern would be a volume-character, followed by the name of thevolume—such a pattern would eliminate matches to other occurrences ofthe name that happen not to be labels of volumes). The absence of abuilt-in file organization does not prevent the user from creating afile that fits his individual needs, and one that, because the usercreated it, he understands. But also, because the system has not beenchanged in any way, a guest can find things in the user's structure (infact, she can ignore the structure and treat all content as a flat,unstructured, file).

One advantage of filing information in the manner of the invention isthat the structures were not dictated by the designers of the particularimplementation of the system—who may have ideas different from theuser's. Therefore, the user does not have to develop a mental model ofwhat the designers were trying to do. Many users do develop inaccuratemodels of how systems work; these mental models persist and causecontinuing difficulties for those users.

A similar feature as described herein was provided on the SwyftWare andCanon Cat products. In those cases, the elimination of file names,directories, and the various mechanisms usually provided formanipulating them proved one of their most successful features.

One benefit of eliminating file structures can be seen in theimplementation of a copy command. Consider the case where the user has ndocuments that he wants to copy to an external medium, such as aFireWire hard drive. With, for example, the Macintosh OS, the user dragsthe icon of each document to the icon of the drive, and it is copied. Inthe new paradigm it seems, at first, more complicated: the user has tofind the beginning and the end of each document, select the document,and move the cursor to a place on the drive, and then move eachdocument.

However, in the GUI, the user starts in the generating application. Thefirst step is to get to the desktop. The user must also remember whichicons correspond to the desired documents, and someone had to have gonethrough the steps of naming those documents. The user will have to alsoknow in which folder they are stored. So the apparent simplicity is onlyarrived at after considerable work has been done and the user hasshouldered a number of mental burdens. Assuming (as was done for theGUI) that the cursor is in one of the documents the user wishes to move,then selecting a document with an especially efficient cursor movingtechnique (for example, a prior art method called LEAP explained below)consists of only a few keystrokes.

The prior art LEAP system, which is particularly useful in the system inaccordance with the invention, works like this: There are two LEAP keys,one of which searches forward from the present position, and one ofwhich searches backwards. Pressing a LEAP key puts the system into aquasimode; once in this mode, the user can enter a pattern. In thiscase, the pattern would be a single document character. Typing thedocument character in the LEAP quasimode moved the cursor to thedocument character. The next LEAP moved the cursor to the other end ofthe document. A tap of both LEAP keys together selects the text. (Thisis probably most easily done when the LEAP keys are operated by thethumbs, which are otherwise underutilized in typing. A dedicated selectkey is another alternative.) In order that the function be visible, alegend adjacent to the LEAP keys is needed. The legend could, forexample, read “Press both LEAP keys together to make a selection.” Notethat the user does not have to watch the display while he selects thedocument. Once a document is selected, the cursor is LEAPed to sometarget in the contents of the drive (the contents of which, when thedrive was plugged into the computer, became simply part of the contentsof the system) and a COPY command is given. The document, when selectedthis way, includes its separators. Thus, if the document is moved, itretains its character as a document because the document separators movewith it.

The same technique that is used to copy a document (or a selection ofany length from a character to a set of documents—or the entire contentsof the system) from here to there is used to move a selection; the onlydifference is that a MOVE command rather than a COPY command is given.The process is functionally no more complex than that needed in the GUI.It will often be faster; and the number of methods, concepts, andstructures that an individual must understand is lower.

Putting a few selections from different documents together onto a driveusing the LEAP-based paradigm, employs the same method as that justdescribed for moving documents to the drive: The selections are found(and once found, do not have to be opened, because the concept ofopening a document is superfluous); selected, as described above (exceptusing the text—rather than document characters—at the beginning and endof the selection); and copied into place. In a GUI, the user must firstopen a new destination document (possibly by using the NEW command inthe FILE menu of the application); find a document that contains aselection the user needs; open the document; find the selection withinthe document; select it; use the COPY command; activate the destinationdocument; PASTE the selection in; activate the desktop; find the nextdocument that has a desired selection; and repeat until all theselections have been pasted into the destination document. Then he mustSAVE the result to the drive by using a dialog box.

Even if the complexity of doing any task was the same in eitherparadigm, the conceptual simplicity of the methods outlined here wouldbe preferable. In most cases, the work required is also far less.

Abolition of Applications

The conventional structure of computer software, consisting of anoperating system under which application programs execute, is inherentlymodal. This has suggested to the inventor that to develop an interfacethat is nonmodal, an approach that does not include applications intheir conventional form be used.

Because gestures (for example, those that invoke commands) in oneapplication may not be available in another, the user must be consciousof which application is currently active. But the user cannot reliablydo this when his locus of attention is the task he is trying toaccomplish. The user will sometimes use a gesture with either no resultor the incorrect result. A separate difficulty caused by applicationprograms is the unavailability of the facilities of one application whenthe user is in another. For example, the user wishes to do a task thatcould have done in application A, but the user is in application B,which has no comparable command.

Three approaches at solving this dilemma are well known. The most commonmethod is to provide, in each application, all those facilities the useris likely to need. This was discussed above, where it was pointed outthat every personal computer has many different text editors, each partof some application or other facility. Most personal computer wordprocessors have multiple and different text editors in its various parts(for example, a typical word processor has a weaker editor when typing apattern into the Find dialog box than when working in the main body ofthe text). This approach forces applications to become gargantuan, aseach of them must solve a host of user needs that are peripheral to theprimary thrust of the software. For example, some word processors havean embedded drawing program so that the user can create simpleillustrations without having to leave the text editor. At the same time,drawing programs have embedded text editors so that a user can includeformatted blocks of text in drawings without having to leave the drawingprogram. The drawing facilities in the editor and the text editingfacilities in the drawing program are typically inferior to the softwareprimarily dedicated to those tasks. Ideally, all the commands andabilities of both the drawing and the editing program should beavailable at all times.

Similarly, every program has facilities for saving and retrieving namedfiles. However, these facilities operate differently and have differentfeatures in different programs. This is confusing, difficult to operate,and also requires immense amounts of largely redundant software, all ofwhich the user must pay for, learn to use, keep the documentation for,and for which the user must supply a computer system with adequate mainmemory and mass storage. The same is true of a host of other featuresthat are duplicated or nearly duplicated between programs.

There has been some industry recognition of these difficulties; a numberof companies designed software that permits a single compound documentto have parts created by different applications. When the user clicks atany point in a compound document, the application that created thatportion of the document becomes active. Once the compound document hasbeen created, this technique allows the user to avoid having to open theindividual applications explicitly. Of course, to create such a documentthe user must still manually invoke the applications, create the partsof the compound document, and then assemble them (usually by cutting andpasting, or by dragging). Although providing a modicum of convenience,the fundamental dilemma is not solved by this method, which isexemplified by Apple's OpenDoc, HP's NextWave, and Microsoft's OLEsoftware and their descendants. It remains the case that when the useris working in one part of a compound document he does not have thefacilities of the applications used to create the other parts of thedocument. Worse, the user now has a document that seems to have noboundaries, but whose behavior changes from place to place withoutwarning. A table and a spreadsheet may look identical, but one operatesaccording to the rules of the word processing program, and the otheroperates according to the rules of the spreadsheet program. This is aparticularly troubling form of modality. The only warning the user getsas he clicks here and there is that the menus, which are usuallypositioned far from the locus of attention, change. This is anineffective means of alerting a user as to system state (there is, ofcourse, no completely effective means).

The original approach to eliminating the modes inherent in applicationswas the creation of the windowing paradigm. Overlapping windows wereproposed, in part, to eliminate the modality of applications. Windowswere also intended to eliminate the distinction between operating systemand applications, but succeeded primarily in making the functioning ofthe operating system visible in the form of the desktop. However,windows do not eliminate the modality of applications but, instead, makemultiple applications simultaneously visible and accessible. But theproblem of modes and other dilemmas posed by the existence ofapplications have not been solved. One method of eliminating modalityparticularly suited to the system in accordance with the invention is toprovide a system of universal command execution.

The invention applies the concept that a system should not be morecomplex than the user's present needs, and by allowing the system toincrease its power incrementally, the system can provide products thatare initially truly simple without being made to merely look simple, andwithout impairing their flexibility. To understand one means of doingthis, one must recognize that almost all that a computer does involvesthe content that that the user provides or obtain, and some set ofoperations he wishes to perform upon this content. The interface toevery such operation consists of two part: choosing the content andinvoking the operation.

When a command is invoked on a selection, there are three possibilities

-   -   The operation can be performed on the selection    -   It makes no sense to apply that operation to the selection    -   The selection can be modified to make the operation possible

In the first case, the operation is performed and the content modified.In the second case, the content is left unchanged. In the third case,before the command can be performed, another process must be invoked bythe computer to modify the selection.

Instead of a computer's software being viewed as an operating system anda set of applications, the invention views the software as a set ofcommands, some of which are transformers that can be invokedautomatically when the data type expected by the command does not matchthe data type of the object selected. More than one transformer may haveto be invoked. For example, given a computer with one transformer thatconverts A to B and another that converts B to C, and if the commandexpects data type C but the data type of the selection is A, then bothtransformers will have to be applied before the command can be carriedout. And, in the case where there are no transformers available to dothe job, no change is made to the selection; the user is informed ifnecessary, and the selection is left unmodified.

Instead of relying on application programs, command sets that offer acollection of related operations are provided. For example, instead of aprogram for doing photographic manipulation, a number of independentcommands are provided that, collectively, provide exactly the same rangeof operations. The user can install as many or as few of these commandsas she finds useful, rather than having to install a huge application(of which only a fraction would be used).

Various surveys report a range for the amount of typical softwareapplication features that are never used. The numbers have tended torise over the last decade, and have increased over that time from about15% to the latest surveys nearing 50%. That is a lot of clutter. Byproviding command sets—each command of which can be installedindependently—instead of applications, individual users can drive thatstatistic to nearly zero. Other advantages in this methodology are theability to refine software products incrementally, and to provide newfeatures more easily and frequently. In addition, transformers can besold individually to meet the user's needs. For example, if a majorityof users regularly employ most of the word processing commands fromvendor A, and vendor B thinks of a useful command that A does notprovide, then B can sell that command to A's customers. However, B mightuse a different data structure. In that case, B would be wise to providea pair of inverse transformers that go from A's data structure to B'sdata structure and back again.

Of course, not all programs require this mechanism. A game, for example,would simply be launched and would run independently: This is done inthe usual way by clicking on (or selecting) the desired game's name,probably from a text consisting of a list of names of games, and thenusing the execute command.

A desktop-based interface has a very low efficiency because the userdoes not accomplish tasks when in the desktop. The system in accordancewith the invention has neither desktop nor applications and leaves theuser involved with content at all times.

As explained above, the invention eliminates files and file names, sothat there is only one universe or content space. The user does not needto open or close documents, he simply zooms to them (as explained below)or LEAPs to them and starts working. The user does not openapplications, but can create a new work by just duplicating a blankdocument; he does not launch a game, but zooms in on it (a multi-usergame may even be in progress). Separation into user—defined contentareas employs the separators from the character set, user-chosen wordsor codes, or by making positional distinctions.

E-Mail Example

Transmitting e-mail is a separate application in most systems. In animplementation of the system in accordance with the invention, sendinge-mail consists of selecting the text, selecting the address, andexecuting a send command. Because nearly every operation begins bymaking a selection and ends by executing a command, the standardsequence of operations becomes habitual, and the operation of sendinge-mail does not feel like three distinct steps, but only one.

The user's e-mail directory is simply his address list, or any listcontaining names and e-mail addresses. It is just ordinary text, not aspecial mechanism. If the user wants to send an e-mail to his uncleHerman, he starts by typing the note, and selecting it. The user thenLEAPs (or navigates in another fashion) to Herman Jackson (or howeverthe uncle is listed) and then selects his e-mail address. Lastly, theuser types (or selects from a list of commands) the Send command andexecutes it with the command key. Instead of a single name, of course,the user could have selected a list of names for an email broadcast.Another approach is to have an e-mail command use the first line of theselection as an address, the second line as the subject heading, and theremainder as the content of the message. A command can also be used formaking a selection an attachment to an e-mail.

One implementation of the invention also treats receiving emaildifferently from current systems. When an e-mail arrives, two documentcharacters, which sandwich the growing contents of the e-mail, areinserted immediately before the user's current cursor location. The usercan, of course, continue to work as the e-mail streams in. No specialwindow or “You have mail” message is needed. The user can ignore thee-mail or read it in progress. At any time, during transmission orafterward, the user can select the e-mail, then can move it to whereverhe wishes. An experienced user is likely to have a spot labeled “E-mailRepository”, “E-mail Goes Here” or some such so that it can be LEAPedto, and the e-mail (deposited there automatically as well as beingpresented at the focus as it arrived) can be read at leisure. The valueis that the e-mail, with any attachments, comes in automatically andvisibly, and becomes part of the user's text; the user already knows howto move text to where he wants it. Attachments download in thebackground so that work is not interrupted and that, if there is fear ofsoftware viruses, can be placed into a non-executable softwarequarantine. In another implementation, the arrival of an e-mail may beannounced in a transparent message box and the incoming message canappear as part of a certain document.

A command that gathers recently received e-mail and puts it into aparticular area in the user's content universe may optionally beprovided in an implementation of the invention.

Any abilities now provided by applications also fit into the same model.Consider spreadsheets: If a selection has the syntax of an algebraicexpression, and if a Calculate command is executed, the expression isstored and the results of the expression are displayed in its place.Another command reverses the process and shows the stored expression,which, if necessary, can be edited and recalculated. If expressions arepermitted to have variables, if values can be given names, if a syntaxthat allows position-relative references is provided, if there is somenotation for ranges, and if the expressions are put into a table, then afully functional spreadsheet has been created. But it is more than justa spreadsheet, because references to the spreadsheet values can beincorporated anywhere in text, and any value in the text can beincorporated, by name, in the spreadsheet. That is, the results from aspreadsheet in a report can be used in the introduction to the report,and values in the text can be used in the spreadsheet—without having toset up any special mechanisms. There are no sharp demarcations betweentext, mail, and spreadsheets (or, for that matter, any other content).Commands can be supplied to limit the scope of variables (as inspreadsheets) to within a selected region to avoid variable nameconflict and similar problems. It can be seen that programming consistsof text editing along with a command (for example: compile) that tellsthe system to treat the text as code. The HIOS can be, and in someimplementations is, its own programming environment.

In the prior art, different applications have different commands, and auser cannot in general use the commands from application A while workingin application B and vice versa. The invention liberates commands fromapplications and the inherent modality of applications is eliminated.Applications are replaced by collections of commands, each of which isavailable at any time. The total number of commands a user must masterdrops dramatically with this kind of unification, primarily becauseunification rids the system of the immense duplication of commandsexhibited by conventional systems. In a system constructed in accordancewith the invention, the thousands of commands now provided to computerusers by prior art systems is reduced to the hundreds. Because not allcommands apply to all data types, data-type transformers are applied toobjects to create new objects that, when possible, can be acted on bythe chosen command. A discussion appears below.

Another distinction that can be erased by use of another aspect of theinvention is the distinction between certain facilities provided, inprior art systems, by commercial software and by the user. For example,menus are, at present, operating system objects that are set up by eachapplication, and which are generally set up by the programmers whodesign a system. However, they are just text. The invention allowsordinary text that happens to spell (or was deliberately created so asto spell) the name of a command to be selected and used as a commandjust as if that command were invoked by a click on a menu as inconventional systems. Additionally, the command can be typed while in acommand quasimode, that is, while a “command” key is pressed and heldmuch as a shift key is pressed and held to create uppercase characters.A command so typed can be automatically deleted as soon as it isexecuted so that it does not clutter the area in which it was typed.This invention permits commands to be used at any time and place wheretyping is allowed, without the necessity of a dedicated “command line”.The user also is freed from the present art necessity of moving theirhand from keyboard to GID in order to invoke commands as in menu-basedsystems. Because the typed command is identical to that appearing in alist of commands (or even in a normal menu), it is easy to learn, nospecial “keyboard shortcut” that is different than the name of thecommand has to be memorized.

Grouping is a technique where a number of graphic objects are placedinto a set such that selecting any one of them selects them all. In theinvention this concept is extended beyond prior art grouping to includetext objects. Grouping is also extended to include group indication aswell as selection. Grouping is invoked by selecting the set of objectsto be grouped and then applying the appropriate command.

A useful interface feature allows a developer (or any user) to type up alist of commands, select and group the letters of each command so thatthey are treated as one unit, and then, optionally, lock one or more ofthe commands so that they do not get changed accidentally—lock is acommand which can be applied to a selection which thereafter cannot bechanged unless selected and an unlock command applied. It is alsopossible to provide commands that lock selections with a password sothat they cannot be unlocked without a password. Commands thus treatedcan be indicated or selected and a tap of a command key can cause themto be executed. Positioned at the top of the display, they can act as doconventional system-provided menus. Thus this represents a more generaland powerful method of presenting commands than do conventional methods,whether menus, shortcuts, or command line codes.

At times it is useful for an object to be static with respect to theborders of the display. In prior art systems a system facility sometimesis used to create a screen background, such as a favorite photo orillustration. In the invention, a command, invoked as is any othercommand, is used to pin a selection in place with respect to the displayarea itself. Another typical use for the “pin” command is to create amenu bar at the top of a display. A set of command names that aregrouped, locked, and pinned can act precisely as do prior art menus,however they can be readily created and modified at the content ratherthan the system level. A password version of these commands can makeaccidental changes to such a menu unlikely.

Another aspect of the simplification of the interface is elimination ofdifficult-to-remember and annoying-to-create file names andsystem-provided file structures. If a user is given suitable searchmechanisms, he will find both the file names and the provided filestructures unnecessary. Finally, the current paradigm of an operatingsystem plus application programs may be eliminated completely, resultingin a unified software approach.

Affordances

It is advantageous in an interface that any objects that look the sameare the same. Insisting on this principle results in a boon ofsimplicity for user and programmer alike, and is a concept that extendsfar beyond text. Every object for which this can be done is anaffordance. If a user cannot tell what he may and may not do with anon-screen object by looking at it, then the interface fails to meet thecriterion of visibility, as discussed above.

The ideal of having appearance invariably indicate function is not, ingeneral, achievable. For example, one object can mimic or spoof another.A bitmap of text looks exactly like text, but—in currentsystems—text-editing operations fail on bitmaps. This kind of problemcan be partially surmounted if the system always attempts to transformthe object into a type to which the operation applies.

Use of Icons

Icons are the familiar little pictures that are used in current computersystems to identify buttons and other objects. Icons contribute tovisual attractiveness of an interface, and—under the appropriatecircumstances—can contribute to clarity: however, the failings of iconshave become clearer with time. For example, both the Macintosh® andWindows® 95 operating systems now provide aids to explain icons: When auser points at the icon a small text box appears that tells the userwhat the icon stands for. Instead of icons explaining, it has been foundthat icons often require explanation. If one wanted to obscure or encodesome idea to keep it from prying eyes, substituting icons for the wordsmight not be a bad start. The problem with icons can be considered anissue of diminished visibility: The interface presents an icon, but themeaning of the icon is not visible, or it may give the wrong message tosomeone for whom the graphic is unfamiliar or has a differentinterpretation.

In the preface to The Icon Book, author William Horton says, “I've usedsystems with graphical user interfaces for a decade and would prefer toclick on an understandable image than to enter technojargoncommands—even if I could remember how to spell them” (Horton 1994). Ofthe two poor choices he presents, icons may be preferable, especiallyfor the newcomer or the occasional user. However, there is a choice thathe omits: Clicking on a button identified by a well-chosen word or two.Bob Horn (Jacobson 1999) has developed a style of combining theattributes of words and icons into combined symbols which reinforces thedictum that text is often the best visual cue. People are experts atvisually differentiating one word from another and words can conveyquite specific content. Ergonomic factors, such as case, font-size,color, and other attributes of the text are also important.

Icons are most effective when there are few of them (at most a dozen)and when few are seen at one time (again, at most a dozen). In additionit is essential that they are visually distinct, do a good job ofrepresenting the appropriate concept, and are presented at a reasonablylarge size (typically larger than a text label would be).

There are, of course, many places where words fail. A color palette issuch an example. The index for a collection of clip art is ofteneffective when it has thumbnail representations of each image, but thelist of categories of images, or any higher level organization, shouldbe text. An image of a number of flowers does not convey the sameinformation as the word “flowers”. The image might represent “summer”,“a listing of florists”, or “hay fever sufferers chat room”.

Using icons also prevents designers from seeing the possibility ofdirect manipulation. To discard a document in most GUIs, the user dragsits icon to the wastebasket or trashcan. If the document is visible atthe time, why not drag the document itself? In a case like this, theicon is an unnecessary proxy and a level of abstraction the user mustlearn and understand. An implementation of the invention does evenbetter and avoids having a trash icon altogether by making the operationof delete simply a selection of the document to be erased followed by atap of the delete key. This has the added benefit of making deleting adocument monotonous with other forms of deletion.

Providing User Help

An interface in accordance with the invention, as far as is possible, isself—teaching. This does not mean that an interface is, or can be,intuitive, but that a user can readily find comprehensible explanationsor instructions when she needs them. To facilitate learning, a displayof instructional text is presented the first time a new product isactivated. A tutorial and the complete reference should be part of theinterface, accessible at any time. Help displays are simply part of thecontent. No special mechanisms or techniques are required to use them. ALEAP to any keyword (and perhaps a few taps of a LEAP AGAIN key) willsuffice to find the desired information. Alternately, the user can zoomto a help area, and then into the particular portion he needs. Helpsystems in GUIs are, in contrast, an addition to the rest of theinterface, have their own rules and implementation, which are anadditional burden on the user and on the system's implementers.

Navigation

Navigation, as used herein, is the process of bringing into view on adisplay, or into earshot or into other detectable form, information inthe system (which includes information available to it via any networkvia direct physical connection or connected by wireless or other means).

In conventional systems many means of navigation are used, whichpresents a burden on the user. In the HIOS there are two basicnavigation methods. One of which has already been described, that is, bymeans of a quasimodal search such as LEAP. Another is by use of zooming.It is another object of the present invention to make use of improvedmeans of navigating through the user's content in addition to textsearching methods.

One means of navigation particularly suited to the invention is referredto as a “zooming user interface” (ZUI). In many situations, ZUIs solvethe navigation problem and also provide a way around the problem of thelimited screen real estate that any real display system must confront.Although ZUIs themselves are not new, various novel features of suchinterfaces are useful in the system in accordance with the invention.

In general, the ZUI is based on the idea that the user has access to aninfinite plane of information, a plane that has effectively infiniteresolution. The plane is referred to herein as “ZoomWorld.” Everythingthe user can access is displayed somewhere on ZoomWorld, whether it ison the user's own computer, on a local network to which that computer isattached, or on a network of networks such as the Internet.

To see more of ZoomWorld, the user can “fly” higher and higher above it.To look at a particular item, the user can “dive” down to it. ZoomWorldalso has a content searching mechanism. The overall metaphor is one offlying, climbing to zoom out, and diving to zoom in. The user navigatesboth by flying above ZoomWorld and by doing content searches.

The ZUI readily permits labels to be attached to images and tocollections of images yet does not impose any structure, hierarchical orotherwise, beyond association due to proximity. Users are able toorganize collections of images into clusters and some will createinformal hierarchies, for example a large heading Personal Photos might,when zoomed in on, reveal smaller headings on groups of pictures labeledBaby Pictures, Vacations, Pets, Hobbies, Friends, Relatives, and soforth. Zooming in to the writing under the heading Baby Pictures mightreveal the children's names. A professional photographer is likely tohave a very carefully constructed and organized collection. Note thatthe user is not required to remember the names, he finds them as hezooms and glides about and decides if the image he wants is likely to bein the named category. The same can be done with films and collectionsof sound, though the user may have to activate a film or a sound to makesure it is the one the user wants. In another implementation, a frame ofthe film, when zoomed into, automatically begins to play as soon as itis large enough for comfortable viewing. To stop playing a control orcommand can be provided, but in the preferred implementation, merelyzooming away would stop it, so that upon returning, the film wouldresume from where it left off. A similar method applies to an icon orwords representing content that consisted of sounds.

Wherever the zooming controls are located, the point being zoomed inupon is the cursor location, which can be adjusted during the zoom bythe graphic input device, being used in its role as a positionalpointing device. That is, during zooming, the system moves the ZoomWorldplane so that the cursor position is at or near the center of thedisplay.

If zooming is quick (at least a factor of two in linear dimensions persecond) and has the appearance of being continuous, zooming to and fromthe cursor position suffices as a graphic navigational tool.

In operation, the size of headings and text determines how far in theuser has to zoom before details can be seen. This technique substitutesfor, and improves upon, hierarchical directories. A fast text searchsuch as LEAP is an important adjunct, used when a user needs to find atextual detail quickly. A few distinctive geometric landmarks can alsobe used. A large red cross, for example, might signal an area containingemergency medical data.

Users, without having the phenomenon pointed out to them—quickly becomefamiliar with the textures of the kinds of work they do. Spreadsheets,tables, text, bitmapped images, drawings, and other products of computeruse each have their own visual characteristics even when seen from afar.The products of various co-workers, groups, vendors, and other creatorsof material will often be immediately recognizable.

A zooming space gives the user a great deal of flexibility in layout. Ifa document grows in length or width, it can simply decrease its scaleuniformly to make the entire document fit within the same region it didbefore its content increased. Similar space-making tactics can be usedwhen a table or spreadsheet is enlarged. Because the user can zoom in,the text can always be made large enough to read. The opposite occurswhen a document or drawing gets smaller. Blank space is unlimited, ifthe system is implemented properly; a command allows a new document tobe started anywhere, (e.g., by copying a blank document, the ZUI analogof the GUI New command), and documents can be allowed to overlapadjacent documents or be restricted in their growth by them. Internallinks and pointers to web sites (URLs) can bring the user immediately toother documents at a place and size determined at the creation of thelink. Buttons can have as much information on them as the user wishes,including a complete manual, with examples, without affecting theirsimplicity when viewed from afar. Every feature can have an explanationbuilt into it without the user having to search or navigate to adifferent location or open a help window or launch a help facility.

Zooming can also be nonlinear in time, starting more slowly andaccelerating to full zoom speed, allowing for fine control of smallchanges without impeding large changes in scale. It can also slow downand briefly stop at certain predefined zoom ratios, making it easy toget characters to standard sizes.

A ZUI is one means that can replace the browser, the desktop metaphor,and the traditional operating system. Applications disappear. Combinedwith the other aspects of the invention, a ZUI can simplify the use ofcomputer systems in general. With care and understanding of cogneticprinciples, it can be built so as to completely conform to therequirements of human cognitive abilities, and is easier to implement,learn, and use than conventional software methods.

Conventional GUIs typically have a mazelike quality in that a user mustnavigate through various user interface elements such as windows, menus,and dialog boxes in order to access data and to execute commands andapplications. For example, conventional GUIs typically require a user touse a browsing application (also referred to as a “file manager”) tofind files that are located on a computer system and/or network. Thebrowser application typically displays the files in a top-downhierarchy. First, the browser application may display the volumes (alsoreferred to as “drives”) that are accessible from the user's computer.The user can then select one of the volumes to “open,” for example, byusing a graphical input device such as a mouse to double-click on anicon representing the volume. The browser application then typicallydisplays any folders (also referred to as “directories”) contained onthe volume, for example, by displaying text or an icon identifying thefolder. The browser application also typically displays any documents(also referred to as “files”) that are stored on the volume outside of afolder. The user can “drill down” further by opening one of the folders,for example, by double-clicking on the icon representing the folder. Anydocuments and/or folders stored in that folder are then displayed. Theuser can then open a document, for example, by double-clicking on anicon representing the document or drill down further by opening otherfolders or volumes. If a document happens to be an application (that is,the document is an executable file), the user can typically execute thatprogram by double-clicking on the application.

Conventional GUIs also typically require the user to navigate throughvarious user interface elements in order to find and execute commandsand change settings within applications. For example, typicalapplications require the user to navigate through one or more layers ofmenus in order to find and execute commands and changes settings. Often,application settings must be changed by first selecting an item from amenu (for example, the “Tools” menu item) and then selecting an itemfrom a drop-down menu (for example, an “Options . . . ” drop-down menuitem). Then, the system presents the user with a dialog box containingmany separate tabbed pages. Only one of the tabbed pages is entirelyvisible at any given time; for each of the other pages, only a small tabcontaining a label describing the page is visible. To view a particulartabbed page, the user can click on the tab. Each tabbed page typicallyincludes several controls such as radio buttons, check boxes, andselection lists that the user can manipulate using the graphical inputdevice (GID), or a keyboard equivalent, to change settings. Often, auser will have trouble remembering where an infrequently used settingsis located and, as a result, must spend time searching through variousmenus and dialogue boxes in order find the desired setting.

Transparent Messages

While a designer should endeavor to create interfaces that do not needto interrupt the user with messages or ask for decisions, there are sometimes when informing the user is necessary. In present art systems thisis done by means of message and dialog boxes. To insure that they areseen, most of these will lock the entire system until the user sends asignal to the system, usually by clicking a button or pressing a key.This is modal and disruptive and can be frustrating when, as in multipledisplay systems, the message might appear very far from both the locusof attention and the system focus, and the user may flounder for a whiletrying to find out why the system has stopped working. In addition, theresponse to such messages often becomes habitual so that the box isdismissed before it has been read, and in general a dismissed dialog boxcannot be redisplayed. Error messages also obscure whatever is behindthem, which is especially troublesome when the material to which themessage refers is thereby rendered inaccessible.

Methods of making one shape appear as if it were transparent andfloating above another are well-known and available in commercialsoftware such as Adobe® Photoshop®. However, this ability has typicallybeen used in a decorative and not an essentially functional way.

The HIOS, which may sometimes need to send a message to a user, solvesthese problems and thereby makes innovative use of transparency by (1)using transparency to avoid obscuring material already displayed, (2)allowing the user to continue to work “through” the message, (3) bystoring all transparent messages in a message log so that they can beaccessed later and (4) by having them gradually fade from view orotherwise disappear so that the user need take no action to dismissthem. Transparency can sometimes be made more effective by using tintsand shading to distinguish it from the background. Transparency can alsobe used to show material typed or drawn in places where a present artsystem would have to prohibit such typing or drawing. The user can thenuse a command to move such typing or drawing to an appropriate locationwithout losing it.

Summary of the Features in the Humane Interface Operating System (HIOS)

An “interface is the sum total of what a user does with a product andhow the product responds. Prior art human-machine interfaces have beenmostly created in an ad hoc manner. A study of computer science,cognetics, and cognitive psychology suggests that a more unifiedapproach would yield many benefits including ease of learning, ease ofuse, productivity, reliability, economy, more efficient use of machineresources, and a lowering of the risk of job-related injury.

A number of cognitive principles have been central to developing andunderstanding this invention, known as the Humane Interface OperatingSystem (HIOS). Among them are the singularity of a human's locus ofattention (that humans can pay conscious attention to but one thing at atime), that all other acts are performed at the same time as someone ispaying attention to one thing are done unconsciously; and the fact thatforming habits cannot be avoided. Another principle is that ofvisibility; the user either cannot use, must guess, or must burden hermemory to use some feature that cannot be seen.

In existing systems, the user is often in a situation where it is notclear what will be selected when the user chooses a point with a graphicinput device (GID). The object that is to be selected might be partiallyobscured, close to another object, overlapping, or otherwise difficultto point to. This is a failure of visibility; what is about to beselected is not visible. However, in the HIOS, the method of indicationis available, where what would be selected by a GID always, or nearlyalways, is shown by a special highlight. No user action beyond pointingwith the GID is required for indication.

In existing systems there is, at any time, at most one selection, adesign which makes it difficult to collect multiple selections into oneand which makes multi-argument commands, such as exchange, impossible toinclude in any systematic way and without violating cognitiveprinciples. The invention may solve both these problems, and others, bycreating a stack of selections, whereby, for example, the currentselection and the next most recent selection can be exchanged.

Only three things can be done with an object: it may be indicated,selected, or modified. For example, if a user wishes to change anobject's color to red, the user might select the object, which he or sheknew was an object due to indication. Then the user might select thecolor red from a palette of colors, again knowing the extent of theselection by means of indication. Lastly, he or she would invoke acommand that takes one selection consisting of a colorable object andone selection consisting of a color (one being the current selection andone being the old selection) and thereupon change the color of theobject to red.

A further simplification of current interface paradigms is to create anontology of kinds of modifications as an ontology of operations wascreated. The operations turn out to be relatively few in number, and ifeach category of operation is handled in but one way in the interface,then the number of interface methods can be diminished. Themodifications are: generation, deletion, collection, transformation, andreplication. As discussed above, and to give an example, replicating anobject, say a document, can result in there being two copies of thedocument on the same system. But printing, emailing, uploading, andsaving to mass storage are all ways of replicating a document, and thesame method can be used for each: one needs to select the document andthe destination, and then apply the replicate command. Note that thismethod is enabled in the HIOS by there being multiple selections.

In conventional systems, objects that are “owned” by the system arehandled differently than content that is “owned” by the user. Forexample, on the Apple Macintosh system a triangle in a drawing packagecan be deleted by selecting it and tapping the key marked “delete”(“backspace” on some keyboards), however a document cannot be deleted byselecting its icon and tapping that key (though Windows permits this).In the HIOS, any object may be deleted by selecting it and then tappingthe delete key. Similarly, when typing in a word processor, manyfacilities, such as spell checking are available; however when typing afile name a different set of facilities are available even though typingis the same operation in each case. This leads to confusion andfrustration (as when a user wants to check the spelling of a file name).The HIOS has one facility for handling all typing, wherever it mightoccur. Another feature of the HIOS is that typing does not cause thecurrent selection to be deselected nor does it replace selected text aswith most conventional systems. This prevents much accidental loss oftext. To replace text, the user selects, deletes, and then types.

Because drag-and-drop (of selections) can be problematical, one of thefeatures of the HIOS that, as is usually the case, is useful inconventional interfaces, is a GID with a special button or other inputmeans that indicates grasping an object, such as buttons on the side ofa mouse where they would be operated by a normal grasping motion.

Large systems need many commands, to accommodate them, the HIOS usescommand names that may be typed in a command quasimode or selected andthen executed by means of a tap of the command quasimode button.Selection of a command is facilitated by grouping the letters so that asingle tap of the GID or a LEAP to any part of the command serves toselect the entire command. Commands can, where appropriate, be icons ordrawings; but they operate no differently than do other commands. Anycommand may be used at any time (which eliminates modes) if the objectselected is not of a type to which the command applies, then the HIOSseeks a facility, called a “transformer” that can convert the data typeto one on which the command can operate. An inverse transformer may beable to put the data back in a form where it can be displayed with theoriginal. Because commands can be ordinary text, they can be typed bythe expert at a particular command or easily looked up by the novice.The split between ease of learning and expert use of commands is therebyerased in the HIOS, and deep menu searches become unnecessary. Menus canbe presented as well-organized documents instead of pull-down listswhere many items are obscured.

Universal Undo and Redo are essential to the HIOS, and to a depth thatshould be limited only by the system's memory size including virtualmemory. This is a far better solution to problems such as the accidentalerasure of files than the fallible “are you sure” kinds of confirmation.

There should be two means of navigation in a HIOS, though for someapplications either one will do; the visual and graphical on one handand the text-based on the other. They are linked by the invention ofspiral incremental searching. Incremental searching gives constantfeedback as to how a user is proceeding in his search while the additionof a spiral search pattern may allow searching both locally and globally(including across networks) automatically. A spiral search begins with awrapped search in the current document, and then proceeds with a wrappedsearch of ever more inclusive sets of objects. This can be guided by thevisual appearance of the environment as seen in the zooming userinterface described in “The Humane Interface”. The spiral, centered onthe user's current focus, can be a literal spiral and the next object tosearch is the next object the spiral touches as it grows from its centerin the graphical representation, or by some other organizing principlethat includes the entire domains of interest. Conventional methodsseparate searches within the user's current document or object fromthose involving the totality of the user's local system, and use yet athird method for searching on networks (and sometimes there areadditional methods). The HIOS unifies all searches, as well as unifyingsearching with the process of moving a cursor in objects which containtext.

A HIOS minimizes error messages and other messages to the user, however,the invention of transparent messages, so that one can work “through”them and that do not establish a mode improves the usability of aninterface even in the presence of such messages.

A central feature of the HIOS is the means and method of eliminatingapplications per se and unifying all applications into a set ofcommands. The method of invoking commands via a command quasimode hasbeen discussed, and allows the system to distinguish between content andcommands. That commands are as universal as possible is assured by theexistence of data type transformers that can automatically change thedata type of an object, if possible, if the command cannot apply to itdirectly. This invention may dramatically decrease the size of the codeneeded to perform the range of tasks for which a device can be used. Itmay change a multiplicative explosion of commands into an additivecollection.

For some applications it may be advantageous to be able to makeselections unchangeable, sometimes with respect to the fixity of theircontent, at other times with respect to their position on the screen.User-accessible commands that can lock the content of any selection andpinning with respect to the display (as opposed with respect to awindow) which allows simulation of conventional system features are notavailable in current practice.

Implementing the HIOS

FIG. 1 shows a schematic block diagram of one hardware implementation ofthe invention. System 100 is an information appliance, in this case apersonal computer. System 100 includes GID 105, display 110 and keyboard115 with quasimode keys 120 that may be read simultaneously with oneanother and with other keys 125 that may or may not be readablesimultaneously with each other and with quasimode keys 120, forcommunicating information to and receiving input from a user. In oneimplementation, all the keys can act as quasimode keys, in which casethe keyboard is a “chord keyboard.” GID 105 may be any input device forcommunicating gestures and/or the position of a cursor on a display suchas a mouse, joystick, trackball, touch pad, or other device. Display 110may be any display device such as a CRT monitor or LCD screen. Theinformation appliance 100 may also be connected to mass storage devices130, one or more external local area networks 135, one or more wide areanetworks 140, and to the Internet 145. The HIOS 150 uses input from theinput devices to affect the content 30, and uses the content to affectthe appearance of the display 110 and transmit information to massstorage or networks in accord with instructions and data received fromany source.

Content may be stored in system 100 in any number of ways, including onan internal hard drive, a mass storage device connected to system 100,or may be accessible to system 100 on a local area network (LAN) 135,wide area network (WAN) 140 or even on a global network like theInternet 145 attached to system 100. From the user's point of view, HIOS150 treats content in the same manner regardless of its physicallocation or source. When the system focus is on some object of content,the data associated with that content may be loaded into availablememory in system 100 (not shown) which may be, for example, randomaccess memory (RAM), to facilitate ease of interaction. Suchmanipulation, however, is invisible to the user who, as discussed above,simply sees content 30 as a collection of information organized in anymanner the user or content provider chooses.

As seen in FIG. 2, system 100 also includes transformers 210, which maybe in the form of computer program code. Like content 155, transformers210 may be stored in non-volatile memory in a number of ways such as,for example, on an internal hard drive. A subset of often-usedtransformers may also be maintained in system memory. In oneimplementation, system memory contains a list of available transformersand a map of their locations to facilitate their execution. HIOS 150accesses and executes transformers 210 as needed in response to commandsinput by the user.

System 100 also includes command implementations 220 which, liketransformers 210 may be in the form of computer program code. Theelimination of multiple separate application programs, as discussedabove, eliminates a tremendous amount of redundancy present in currentcomputer systems. Eliminating this waste makes it possible to maintainlarge, possibly comprehensive, set of command implementations in RAM orROM, making operation of the system much faster. As discussed above, thecollection of actual commands resident on each user's system may varydepending on the tasks most commonly performed by a particular user.Command implementations 220 are accessed and executed by the HIOS inresponse to user inputs as discussed above. As with content 155,transformers 210 and command implementations 220 need not all be presentwithin system 100, but may be available to system 100 from any of thesources shown in FIG. 1 or elsewhere.

As shown in FIG. 2, the HIOS 150 which controls content 155,transformers 210, input handler 205, output handler 215, and commandimplementations 220. The input handler takes in all input sources 225,and the output handler 215 sends information to various destinations230. Content 155, as explained above, is all the material resident inthe computer that was created or brought into the system that hasutility for the user, that can be examined or otherwise operated upon.

FIG. 2 also shows the I/O controls including hardware and software forconverting electronic signals from the respective I/O devices into datafor the HIOS 150 to process and vice-versa. Other than having specificmeans for each different kind of device to deal with the conversion intodata, once converted the HIOS treats all the inputs and outputs alike.

The input handler 205 detects inputs and the HIOS 150 decides theirsemantic content, based on standard input handling techniques. Forexample if it finds the pointer, controlled by the output handler 215,coinciding with an object it will direct the output handler 215 tohighlight the object in such a way as to signal indication. There neednot be any coding techniques that are beyond the ability of one skilledin creating system code, the invention is primarily in the structure ofthe interface.

FIG. 3 is a flow chart 300 of the process of applying a command to aselection including the steps of choosing a selection 305 (in accordwith noun-verb order), having a command accepted by the HIOS 150 in step310, the selection and command are compared by HIOS to see if the datatype of the selection matches the data type required by the command andmakes decision 315. If there is a match, then the command is applied atstep 320, giving the commanded result. If there is no match thendecision 325 is made depending on whether there is a transformer or aset of transformers available that will convert the data type of theselection to a data type on which the command can operate. If there isnot, then step 330 is taken, which leaves the selection unaffected andin step 335 a notice that the command was not carried out because thedata was the wrong type is put into the log. Optionally, a message tothat effect (in this implementation, it would be a transparent message),is placed on the display. In the event that the result of decision 325is positive, then the appropriate transformation(s) is (are) applied tothe selection in step 340, and then the command is applied at step 345to the transformed selection.

By including interpreters and/or compilers which can be invoked bycommands, the HIOS can serve as its own programming environment. Textcan be treated as code, and commands that format the text appropriatelyfor each language can be provided, while most program sourcemanipulation is accomplished by the standard, universal text editingmethods and commands already described.

Indication

In accordance with the invention, a system of indication provides a wayin the interface to set some portion of the content apart from othercontent. This is sometimes referred to as highlighting and involvesadding, by any means, a recognizable distinction to an object ofcontent. The function of the highlight is to allow the user todetermine, by passive observation, that the system has recognized aparticular object as having a special status. The semantics of thatstatus are dependent on the nature of the object and on the commandsthat the user can apply to it. For sighted users, the highlight isusually visual. Examples of visual highlighting mechanisms includebrightness reversal, color change, a colored shadow, change of contrast,underlining, blinking or other periodic change, and applying astationary or animated border to an object. Non-visual highlighting canbe provided, for example, in an audible manner by different choice ofvoices, background sound or quality (such as a buzz or echo) or spokeninflection.

As the user moves the cursor over objects, for example with a GID suchas a mouse or by searching as with LEAP, the object to which the cursorcurrently points is highlighted. In text, the currently selected objecttypically would be an individual character. Highlighting the singleobject pointed to as a cursor is moved, without any other user action(such as clicking), is “indication.” With indication, the user knows atall times at what object the system thinks the user is pointing. In toomany conventional systems, the user must guess at what will be selectedor activated when a GID button is pressed, clicked, double-clicked orotherwise. If the user's guess is incorrect, the user will have to tryagain, wasting time and energy. Indication can be especially valuablewhen the objects that the user would like to select are small and closetogether, when they overlap, or when their limits are unclear. Oneexample may be a computer aided design (“CAD”) document with manygraphic components closely grouped together.

In the preferred implementation, the highlighting used for indicationdoes not exhibit too much contrast to avoid confusion with what isselected and to prevent annoying flickering of objects as the cursormoves over them. Optionally, the system may be configured not toindicate objects when the cursor is moving faster than a thresholdvelocity. In an alternate implementation it will be beneficial to havehigh contrast indication. A smaller object (as measured by the visualangle the indicated object subtends), for example, may require highervisual contrast of the indication.

Use of a universally applied system of indication as described caneliminate unnecessary clicking (by comparison with conventionaldesigns). In fact, indication can often replace clicking, and clickingcan be used in place of double clicking (as when one follows a link in aHTML browser by means of a single click).

FIG. 4 is a flow chart 400 for indication. While either interrupt-drivenor polling methods may be used, a polling method is shown. Decision 405checks whether the cursor has been moved. Upon its being moved the newlocation is checked at decision 410 to see if it points to a locationassociated with a new object (that is, one that is not presentlyindicated). If not, the process returns to waiting for a cursor move atdecision 405. If the cursor is at a location associated with an object,then that object is highlighted as specified in step 415, and any otherpreviously indicated object is not highlighted. Note that if there aremultiple objects that overlap, there may be a number of locations in theoverlapping area associated with each object so that small moves of thecursor will cause one or the other of the objects to be highlighted.

FIG. 7 shows a process for clicking on an object. When there is a clickfrom the GID, the interrupt is triggered at step 705. The HIOS thenchecks to see if there is an indicated object 710. If not, the routineexits at 715. If an object is indicated, the indication highlight ischanged to a selection highlight and the object is made the currentselection 720. Then all other selections have their count incremented725, that is, the n-th old selection is made the (n+1)-th old selection.

As seen in FIG. 5, representing prior art, the icon for the “MyDocuments” folder 505 is highlighted, i.e., displayed in inverse ascompared to the other icons on the screen, because it has beenpreviously selected by the user. The cursor 510, however, is located ina different portion of the display screen, above the icon for theQuicken Basic 99 application 515, which is itself overlapping andpartially obscuring another icon “below” it called Time & Billing 520.As can be seen in the figure, there is no indication of the object towhich the interface thinks the user is pointing. Accordingly, if theuser performs an operation, for example presses the delete key, it willbe the My Documents folder 505 that is affected, and not the Quickenapplication 515 the user may currently be pointing at with the cursor510. Because the user's locus of attention is likely on whatever cursor510 is near, pressing the delete key may have unintended consequences.

In contrast, FIG. 6 diagrams one implementation of the invention whereinthe system of indication is used in an interface similar to the priorart windows-based GUI. FIG. 6 shows a computer display 600 including amenu bar 605, a number of icon objects 610, and a cursor 615 that iscontrolled by a GID (not shown). Cursor 615 is shown “pointing” at icon620 representing a framed area that contains content. In accordance withthe invention, the interface indicates that frame 620 is being pointedat by the cursor 615 by highlighting frame 620. As can also be seen,frame 620 is “below” and partially obscured by frame icon 625 named“Photos”. Because icon 625 is displayed in the normal manner, the userimmediately knows that it is frame 620 that is being pointed at and noticon 625, even though frame 625 is on top. Thus the user knows exactlywhat item will be selected or activated when the user clicks theappropriate GID button in the appropriate manner.

Selection Stack

In prior art systems, the previous selection is commonly deselected. Incontrast, when a selection is made in the system in accordance with theinvention, the previous selection is maintained and becomes the “old”selection. This selection process can be iterated so that as the usercreates new selections, the most recent selection becomes the oldselection, the next most recent selection becomes the second oldselection, and, in general, the nth most recent selection becomes thenth old selection. Placing the selections on the stack and maintainingtheir order is accomplished automatically as the user makes selections.The only limitation to the size of this selection stack in oneimplementation can be the amount of available memory. In oneimplementation of the invention, the highlighting that signals selectionis distinct from and more readily apparent than that used for indication(if indication is present). The highlighting for older selections alsomakes them clearly distinguishable from one another. In oneimplementation, the highlight of older selections may be of lower visualcontrast than newer ones. In another implementation, an alphanumericdesignation may accompany old selections so that they can be readilyidentified. This is especially useful if the number of selectionsbecomes large. In yet another implementation, the selection highlight isanimated, such as the “marching ants” or “marquee” style, with theanimation moving more slowly the older the selection is. As will bereadily understood, some or all of these highlighting implementationsmay be combined in various combinations and still others will be knownor readily conceived of by one of ordinary skill in graphic interfacedesign.

In one implementation, along with this invention's method of selection,are one or more commands for adjusting the stack of selections. Theseare commands that allow the user, for example, to interchange thecurrent selection with the first old selection, to interchange thecurrent selection with any earlier selection, or to interchange any twoold selections or groups of old selections, to deselect any selection.

In the invention, the first problem of existing systems—lack ofvisibility—has been corrected. Initially, the different highlightingprovides immediate visual feedback to the user which makes the behaviorof the selection process apparent. The use of a numerical indication ofprior selections is also a means for making the selection stack clearlyvisible to the user. In addition, visibility can also be enhanced by useof an on-screen hint, for example, that further explains the visualhighlighting.

Another drawback of prior art systems is the high risk the user runs ofmaking a mistake during the composition process. In one implementationof the invention, an improved method for making complex selectionsincludes a command that redefines the current selection to be the unionof the old selection and the current selection. Given such a command,the user can concentrate on making a selection without any concern forwhat she has done previously; only after she confirms that the currentselection is correct does she add it to the composite selection. In oneimplementation, a command collecting a number of selections greater thantwo into the current selection can be provided. Making old selectionsavailable (and, of course, marked by a special highlight so that theyare visible) also allows multi-argument commands—for example, the twoarguments to a command that interchanges a pair of selections.Furthermore, most conventional systems do not apply their undo and redocommands to the process of making selections. This omission isunfortunate, because errors in making selections are frequent. Animplementation of the invention includes an applicable pair of undo andredo commands that apply to the selection stack, for which the onlylimitation to the number or levels of undo commands permitted is thatdue to available storage.

Regarding another drawback, the trouble with toggling (toggles ingeneral are modal and thus introduce the potential for mode errors), apreferred implementation of the invention includes a simple solution:providing one command or quasimode to add an object to the selectionstack, and a different command or quasimode to remove an object from theselection stack. Trying to add an object already selected will notchange the selection, and trying to remove an object not in theselection also will not change the selection.

In another aspect of the preferred implementation, if the userre-selects the nth old selection, it becomes the current selection. Allold selections older than the nth retain their position, but the currentselection becomes the first old selection and all other selections newerthan the nth move down one position. In one implementation, if the userselects a part of an old selection, or modifies the content of an oldselection, then that old selection is deselected (noting that it may bereselected later by use of the UNDO command) and any succeedingselections are moved up one position in the stack.

A selection can also be made in a pure voice system. For example, usinga microphone with a rocker switch, as described above, a user can holdthe switch and Leap to the spoken pattern“one—period—space—A—N—space—I”, release the switch, completing the Leap,and then Leap to “G—colon” completing a second Leap. The user thenpresses and holds the command key and verbally gives the command“select”, which selects a sentence starting with “1. An i . . . ”.Similarly, the user can make a second selection. Verbal commands such as“Play selection” and “Play old Selection” and “Play fourth oldselection” lets the user check the contents of such selections audibly.A verbal command (as with all commands, spoken while holding the commandkey in keeping with the modeless virtues of the HIOS) such as“interchange selections” would interchange the current and the oldselection, to name one particular operation.

FIG. 7 shows an implementation of the invention. A user focuses on afirst object displayed on a monitor by pointing to this object using aGID, e.g., a mouse, and clicks the main button (step 705). If there isan indicated object at that moment (step 710), the system will selectthe object indicated (step 720). As part of the selection process, thesystem changes the highlight so as to indicate selection and adjusts theother selections accordingly (step 725). In one implementation,selections are represented internally by a pair of pointers, one to thebeginning of the selection and another to its end. Methods of creatinghighlights and maintaining stacks are well-known to implementers, sothat this figure represents not the implementation but the novelbehavior of the interface.

Commands

Almost all that a computer does involves the content that the user isgiven, provides or obtains, and some set of operations performed uponthis content. The interface to every such operation consists of twoparts: choosing the content as just described and invoking theoperation. For example, in a computer game, the user might shoot amonster, or, in other words, perform the operation of changing the imageof a monster into an image of an explosion. The content is chosen bymoving a cursor to the monster and the operation is invoked by pressinga GID button. In a CAD package the object selected might be a polygon of7 sides and the operation one that makes it a polygon of 23 sides.

One aspect of the invention relates to methods and apparatus forinvoking the desired operation to be performed on selections that havebeen pre-chosen, as described above, by the user. Another aspect of theinvention relates to uniform application of commands regardless ofcontext and the form of the indicated content.

A comparison with prior art systems makes the advantages clear: In themost widely used current a user can transfer a selection from aninvisible buffer to the current focus by use of a “Paste” command. Thecommand is variously invoked by either one. Moving the cursor to an“Edit” item on a horizontal menu that is at the top of the display orwindow, possibly far from the present cursor position, clicking (orclicking and dragging) on the word “Edit” so that a vertical menuappears, and then either dragging down to or clicking on the word“Paste.” Alternatively, the user can press and hold a special quasimodekey (the command key) and tap the key marked “V”. There is no obviousmnemonic connection between the letter “V” and the operation of pasting.Furthermore, not all commands have a keyboard invocation and can only beaccessed through menus. In some states of some conventional systems, aswhen certain menus are unavailable, there may be only keyboard methodsfor invoking certain commands, and searching through menus becomesfutile.

By contrast, the invention makes it possible to put lists of commandsanywhere and to use them as though they were a menu; at the same time itautomatically guarantees that there is always a keyboard shortcut andthat the shortcut has the same spelling as the command when in menuform. Thus it is at least as good and often better than conventional artfor beginners who tend to use menus, it makes it far easier thanconventional art for a user to transition from menu to commandoperation, and it is more efficient than traditional command-linecommands because the commands can be issued anywhere and at any timerather than just on the command line and only when such a line isavailable.

For example, say that the spelling of the command to evaluate anarithmetic expression is “calc” and say that the user has typed thefollowing text into a system configured according to the invention, “Iwant to buy 17+24+18+19+21 shirts for our 5 soccer teams.” and he wantsto find the total number of shirts he must order.

The user next selects the text “17+24+18+19+21” and, while holding thecommand key, types “calc” whereupon the text becomes “I want to buy 99shirts for our 5 soccer teams.”

In one implementation, as the user typed the word “calc”, it appeared ina transparent message box on the display so that the user can verify hertyping; the box would vanish when the command key was released. Inalternative implementations, the message might appear only after somenumber, such as four, characters have been typed, or it might appear ina conventional dialog box or in some special position on the display.

Where the “99” is now the current selection. Alternatively the usercould have typed “calc” into the text, selected it, and tapped thecommand key. Because the command requires an argument, and because thecommand is the current selection, the old selection is used as theargument. In this implementation, the command itself is deleted, and theresult of the evaluation is left selected. This results in the samedisplay as before. Yet another alternative is where there is an instanceof the string “calc” somewhere on the display such that the term hasbeen marked, for example by being grouped, as a command or potentialcommand and instead of typing calc, the user selects the command bymaking sure that it is indicated, and then tapping the command key. Ifwhat is indicated is not a command, there is no effect on the selection.In the preferred implementation a note would be entered into a messagelog, and a transparent error message that is not modal would appear onthe display. The document need not be limited to a bald list ofcommands. For example, each command can be accompanied by a description,or even the user's own notes. A document that is used as a menu in theinvention s an ordinary text document, not something that can be changedonly by programmers or by using a special customization facility.

Before invoking the calculate command, the arithmetic expression wasordinary text. Except that it was selected, there was nothing uniqueabout it; the characters (including spaces) of which the selection wascomposed could have been deleted or moved, or other typicalword-processing commands could have been applied to it (using the samemanner of input). But in this case, the operation that was applied wascalculate. There was no need for the user to open a calculator window orto invoke a calculator application, making this invention easier to usethan most prior art systems.

In this manner, commands need not be restricted to supplied menus, butcan be part of the user's text or, where appropriate, the command can bea graphic object instead of a word or set of words. Commands cantherefore be provided by the user in a simple manner, by merely typing(or drawing) them anywhere. This use does not conflict with the methodin which the command is selected from pre-existing text as they are bothcontent, not system-level widgets.

As a user can lock a selection so that it cannot be changed, a menuprovided by a software developer which is locked is not an exception toits being ordinary content.

To facilitate ease of user recognition, commands can optionally be shownwith some special marking—reverse italics, for instance. In an alternateimplementation, the user would point to a command name so that someletter in the command is indicated, whereupon a tap of the command keywould invoke the command. This eliminates the step of having to selector type the command name in invoking a command.

Because it would waste time and display space to designate a speciallocation for typing commands, the invention allows a command to be typedwherever the cursor happens to be at the moment the need for the commandbecomes apparent. The typed command name is deleted after beingexecuted, so that command names are not left scattered among the user'scontent. On the other hand, when the user executes a command from a listof commands, the command does not disappear; in effect, the list is amenu. As was described above, this can be done by grouping each wordthat is to be a command and by locking the list. To create a special,visually or audibly distinguished menus, a command (perhaps called “makemenu”) that can change them to a distinctive style typically used onlyfor commands could be created.

The operation of the invention can also be described in the context ofelectronic mail. With the invention, an e-mail directory is simply auser's address list, or any list containing names and e-mail addresses.It is just ordinary text, not a special mechanism. If the user wants tosend an e-mail to his uncle Herman, the user types the text of themessage and selects it. The user then moves to the appropriate, mailinglist item (“Herman Jackson” for example) and selects Herman's e-mailaddress. Lastly the user issues “Send” command by any of the meansdescribed. Another implementation of the e-mail function is to have ane-mail send command automatically use the first line of the selection asan address, the second line as the subject heading, and the remainder asthe content of the message. A different command may also be provided formaking a selection an attachment to an e-mail message.

The invention is also useful for providing instant access to helpinformation from anywhere in the system. The user simply would have toexecute the command “help”. An inverse property is also true; that is,help text can also provide the user with the appropriate commands withinit making them available for immediate execution.

FIG. 8 is a flow chart 800 for commando execution in accordance with oneimplementation of the invention. A user decides to change some aspect ofthe content by means of a command. The user selects the desired content805 by selection methods previously described, presses and holds downthe command key in step 810 and continues to hold it until step 820.While holding the key, the user types the name of the command in step815, and then releases the command key in step 820. The HIOS checks forcommand validity, matches data types if necessary as shown in FIG. 3,and if there is no problem in step 825, continues with step 830 andexecutes the command. If there is a problem discovered in step 825, anappropriate message is given in step 835, the message is stored in amessage log in step 840, and the process is complete.

Transformers

When a command is invoked on a selection, there are three possibleconditions: (1) the operation can be performed on the selection; (2) itmakes no sense to apply that operation to the selection; or (3) theselection can be modified to make the operation possible. In the firstcase, the operation is performed and the content modified. In the secondcase, the content is left unchanged. In the third case, before thecommand can be performed, another process must be invoked by thecomputer to modify the selection.

For example, the user selects a part of a photograph of a city streetscene and attempts to apply the command that checks spelling. Thecommand expects a sequence of characters (text), but what it finds is aphotograph (typically in the form of a bit map or some format such asJPEG which can be rendered into a bitmap). Among the capabilities thatthe computer has is the ability to transform content from one data typeto another. A system component or process that converts content from onedata type (or format) to another data type is referred to as a“transformer.” Transformers 210 are part of the HIOS as shown in FIG. 2.In this case, the data type is bit map and the command expects text, sothe computer sees if there is any transformer that has bit maps asinputs and text as output, shown as step 93 in FIG. 3. There are suchtransformers available commercially; one example is called an opticalcharacter recognition (OCR) program. OCR programs are usually employedto convert input from scanners into editable text. In accordance withthe invention, assuming that one is available on the system of FIG. 3,an OCR program is automatically invoked, and it inspects the bitmap. Ifit finds some characters it recognizes (for example, a stop sign and apartly obscured sign with the characters “North First Stree”), thenthese texts are presented to the spelling checker, which reports findingone unknown word (stree) and suggests that perhaps tree, strew, orstreet was meant. If the user intended to correct the spelling of theword “street,” he can do so and after the command is completed, thesystem will automatically transform the modified content back to itsoriginal format.

The invention views all software as sets of commands, some of which aretransformers that can be invoked automatically when the data typeexpected by the command does not match the data type of the objectselected. More than one transformer may have to be invoked. For example,given a computer with one transformer that converts A to B and anotherthat converts B to C, and if the command expects data type C but thedata type of the selection is A, then both transformers will have to beapplied before the command can be carried out. And, in the case wherethere are no transformers available to do the job, no change is made tothe selection; the user is informed if necessary, and the selection isleft unmodified. In this manner, the user may invoke any command on anycontent, regardless of context, and the system will automaticallyprovide the correct action wherever such action is possible given theset of commands resident in the system. In some cases, it may not bepossible to complete an inverse transform on the result, for example ifthe nature of the command itself changes the argument so much that theinverse transform is no longer possible. In that case the system mayreturn the result in the transformed state. In another implementation,the system may abort the command and return the system back to its priorstate.

In any of the above implementations, commands can be provided that allowa user to apply a transformer to a selection outside of the automaticprocess.

Transparent Messages

The full visual effect of transparency, especially as it can make gooduse of color and shading effects is difficult to show in an officialpatent office drawing style, but FIG. 9 simulates transparent letters905 representing the greeting “HI” over an opaque text 910. Of course,any graphic or text can be rendered apparently transparent by techniquescommercially available. If it were desired to do so, a standardrectangular message box could be displayed in transparent fashion.

A user can point to and select any letter in text 910 by disregardingthe transparent overlay. In the preferred implementation the overlay 905cannot be selected, however by the methods described above, forselecting overlapping objects, an alternate implementation could permitsuch selection. Once a letter or any portion of the text 910 isselected, it can be operated upon by any pertinent command as usual. Inother words, the presence of the overlay does not affect the user'sability to work on material under a message. This is in contrast toprior art error messages which do not allow the user to work, or evensee, the underlying content.

Furthermore, prior art error messages often require a response from theuser before they are removed by the system. This makes the systemtemporarily unusable, which is a mode, leading to mode errors andfrustration until the user discovers that the message must be dismissedand the user does so.

After a transparent error message has been displayed, as in FIG. 8, step835, it can remain until the user takes any action, until the user takessome specific action such as modifying the content, it can graduallyfade away, roll up like a window shade and then vanish, or be removedany number of other graphical variations, with or without accompanyingsound effects. In the preferred implementation any message convened bythe transparent message is stored in a message log so that it can bereferred to at a future time, as shown in FIG. 8, step 840.

If a message requires a response that requires visual feedback, thefeedback can be in the form of transparent objects, which in thepreferred implementation may be material typed into a reply area; thetyping in this case would be transparent. If a displayed button is to beused, it cannot be transparent if it overlays content that could beselected through it. Thus a button in an alternate implementation wouldbe opaque if it correctly indicated its function. Proficient designers,however, will generally find ways to avoid having messages that requireany kind of response.

Spiral Searching

Prior art searching uses different search techniques depending on whatdomain is being searched. For example, the Find command in a wordprocessor cannot find matching material on the local hardware (such asmemory and mass storage devices) or even in word processor documentsother than the one from which the Find was launched. In some systems, aseparate facility with a different interface can search local massstorage. Yet other facilities with yet other interfaces are provided forsearching local and wide area networks, and still another facility withyet another interface can be used to search the Internet.

The invention is a single interface that unifies all these searches. Inthe preferred implementation, an incremental text search, alreadydescribed, is the interface.

Generally, prior art searches proceed linearly through their domain.However, a user is far more likely to be interested in the particulartask at hand than in some remote web site. Similarly, material withinthe user's system is more likely to be relevant than the vast hundredsof millions (soon to be multiple billions) of web pages that can bereached by the Internet. Therefore, unlike conventional searches, theinvention of a spiral search automatically proceeds from a startingpoint in a local search domain, for example, a document being edited,which may not be at the beginning of the search domain, to the end ofthat search domain. Then, the search returns to the beginning of thesearch domain and then proceeds to the starting point.

If the user has not found the desired text (either because a targetmatching the pattern was not found in the initial search domain or thatthe targets that were found in the initial search domain were not whatthe user was looking for), then the search proceeds to a second, largerdomain that includes the first search domain. The search proceedscircularly in the second search domain, searching from the end of theinitial search domain to the end of the second search domain. Then, thesearch returns to beginning of the second search domain and proceeds tothe beginning of the first search domain.

If the user has still not found the desired text, then the searchproceeds to a third, larger search domain that includes the first andsecond search domains. The search proceeds circularly in the thirdsearch domain, searching from the end of the second search domain to theend of the third search domain. The search then returns to the start ofthe third search domain and proceeds to the start of the second searchdomain. The search spirals through ever expanding search domains untilthe user locates the desired text or otherwise terminates the search.Note that the search interface is identical, and that the search can becontinuous, for example using the mechanism and interface of theaforementioned LEAP patent, and in particular resuming searching bymeans of a “LEAP again” construct as taught in that patent, or viaanother means.

For example, as shown in FIG. 10, the first search domain where theuser's current focus 1000 is shown in a document 1005 (also referred toas a “file”) stored on a user's local computer (not shown). Aftersearching the document as shown by arrows 1010 and then 1015, the searchcan proceed to search other documents 1090 along a path schematicallyindicated by arrows 1020, 1030, and 1035 located in a collection ofdocuments that might be collectively thought of as a folder 1040 storedon the user's local computer that contains the first document 1005.After searching the folder 1040, the search can proceed to search otherdocuments located in, for example, a volume 1045 (also referred to as a“drive” or “file system”) local to the user's computer that contains thefolder 1040 and other folders (not shown), but the search proceedsthrough them as shown by arrows 1050 and 1055. After searching thevolume 1045, the search might proceed to other documents (which may belocated in other folders) located on other volumes (not shown) that canbe accessed over a local area network 1060 as shown schematically byarrow 1065. The dotted lines 1095 (not all numbered) between the arrowsshow the spiral nature of the search. After searching the local areanetwork 1060, as shown schematically by arrow 1065, the search canproceed to search other documents stored on other volumes eventuallyreaching, if desired, the Internet 1075 which is searched as shownschematically by arrow 1080.

While the arrows are shown as linear, the search method may be based onbinary search, hashed search, indexed search, or any other method thatis intended to find all instances of the search pattern in the domain.The user may stop the search at any time. If LEAP is used, this is doneby releasing the quasimodal LEAP key. With other search interfaces,well-known means, such as a “cancel” button on the display, can be used.

Should the user be aware that some other domain is likely to be morefavorable to the search, there is nothing in this invention to preventthe user from using a conventional link (also called a hyperlink,sometimes implemented as a “URL” such as “www.jefraskin.com”), or tomove the system focus to that domain and to start searching there.

Since matching patterns are displayed, and in the preferredimplementation are displayed in context, as they are found during thesearch, the user can tell when he or she has typed enough of a searchpattern to disambiguate the desired instance. Thus, as soon as the usersees the desired text has been located, the user can stop entering thepattern and terminate the search. If the user happens to type a few toomany letters of the pattern (in the case where the user types quickerthan the search), the pattern will still match and the cursor will staywhere the user wanted it. Also, preferably, the user can backspace atany time—for example, if the user happens to mistype a character in thesearch pattern—and be returned to the last match found

Searching can be implemented using LEAP. In such an implementation, oneLEAP key is used to invoke the search process in a forward direction andthe other LEAP key is used to invoke the search process in a backwardsdirection. Pressing and holding either of the LEAP keys, puts the systeminto a quasimode in which the user can enter the characters of thesearch pattern. The search of FIG. 10 proceeds in an incrementalfashion, with the system searching expanding search domains asnecessary. If an instance of the current search string is found, theuser can instruct the system to search for the next occurrence of thecurrent search pattern, for example, by tapping a LEAP Again key if suchis available, or any key that has been designated to have that function.

In other implementations, the searching scheme of FIG. 10 can beimplemented using delimited searching. In such an implementation, theuser would specify the entire search pattern before the searching isinitiated.

Spiral searching can be implemented using voice control technology. Forexample, a microphone can be provided having a switch, such as a rockerswitch that can be set to one position to initiate a forward search andto a second position to initiate a backwards search.

After the user speaks a character of the search pattern, the characteris added to the current search pattern and a search of the currentsearch domain is initiated. Alternatively, the search can be initiatedafter user has spoken an entire search pattern. Whenever a matchingtarget is located, the matching target can be displayed and/or audiblyindicated to user (for example, by having the system say the sentence inwhich the target was found).

An expanding spiral process can also be used to search the World WideWeb using conventional organizational strategies. For example, a usercan initiate a search that proceeds circularly through an initial website. Then, the search proceeds to search related web sites (forexample, as defined by a web-categorizing service such as YAHOO!® orGOOGLE®) until the search has searched the user's own machine and theentire largest network to which the user is attached.

FIG. 11 illustrates one programmable processing system 1100 on which theinvention may be implemented, including a CPU 1105, a RAM 1110, and anI/O controller 1115 coupled by a CPU bus 1120. The I/O controller 1115is also coupled by an I/O bus 115 to input devices such as a keyboard1130 and mouse or other graphical input device 1135, and output devicessuch as a display 1140, to mass storage 1145, and to a network accessdevice 1150 such as an Ethernet card which in turn is connected tosources of external data 1155 which may be on various networks.

Graphic Input Device

FIG. 12 illustrates two implementations of an interface to a graphicinput device, the well-known mouse that represents an improvement overthe conventional mouse for the purpose of the present invention. Mouse1200 is a conventional three-button mouse with labels 1205, 1210, andothers (unnumbered), which may appear on the body of the GID or on thebuttons or other moveable parts, to show the functions of the buttons.In this implementation, the left button 1215, when pressed, startszooming in, which makes objects in a display appear larger but whichshows an increasingly smaller area of the objects. Zooming stops whenbutton 1215 is released. Similarly, button 1220 controls zooming out,which is the opposite function to zooming in. If both buttons 1215 and1220 are pressed and held, and the mouse moved, it will cause the entireview to move in parallel with the cursor that is moved by the mouse,potentially bringing new objects into view, as indicated by label 1210.Button 1225, when tapped, is used to cause objects to be selected.Button 1225, if pressed and held while mouse 1200 is moved, will causeany object pointed to be dragged to a new position. Prior art mousedesigns do not incorporate labeling, which makes learning how to usethem more difficult and which tends to permit different and conflictinguses of the buttons. Labels help make an interface more consistent andaids in creating desirable monotony.

FIG. 12 also illustrates an embodiment of a graphic input device, inthis example a mouse 1230, in which rotation of the mouse clockwisecauses zooming in as described above, and rotation counterclockwisecauses zooming out. It is clear that this could be accomplished by otherGIDs that have the ability to signal rotation on a primarily verticalaxis, such as rotation about the vertical axis of the handle of ajoystick. Labels 1205 make learning easier and help restrict thecreation of non-monotonous uses of the mouse functions. Grabbingdisplayed objects is made to simulate grabbing physical objects byplacing sensors or buttons 1235 on the sides of mouse 1200. Thisprovides a natural mapping from normal hand motion to the grab-and-movefunction of the HIOS. Button 1240 is used to select, as described above,and button 1245 is held to pan the entire contents of the display asdescribed above.

These implementations of a portion of the invention support the HIOSprinciples of visibility and monotony and correct a number of problemsthat have existed since the very first mouse was designed. Anotherproblem the present invention solves is that the buttons now havedistinctive names, making them easier to refer to in manuals and inspoken discourse, especially for those who have that form of dyslexiawhich confuses “right” and “left”.

Software Implementation

The invention can be implemented primarily as software, to run on anyhardware device that has sufficient resources for the implementation andappropriate inputs and outputs. By means and a process long known tothose skilled in the arts of algorithmic design and programming inmachine language, assembly language, and/or higher level languages, thisinvention can, from this description of its desired behavior, be made tooperate on almost any of a wide range of existing and future hardwareplatforms such as digital computers, information appliances, networkterminals, wireless phones, personal digital assistants, and other likedevices. By these means and by that process, it can be adapted tovarious circumstances, integrated with existing and planned software anddata structures, and implemented so as to run locally (whether installedfrom an internal hardware device or downloaded from a network orexternal hardware device) or remotely (where the software is executed ata distance from the user's hardware device).

Hardware Implementation

The software portions of this invention can be implemented in digitalelectronic circuitry, or in computer hardware, firmware, software, or incombinations of them. Apparatus of the invention can be implemented in acomputer program product tangibly embodied in a machine-readable storagedevice for execution by a programmable processor; and method steps ofthe invention can be performed by a programmable processor executing aprogram of instructions to perform functions of the invention byoperating on input data and generating output. The invention can beimplemented advantageously in one or more computer programs that areexecutable on a programmable system including at least one programmableprocessor coupled to receive data and instructions from, and to transmitdata and instructions to, a data storage system, at least one inputdevice, and at least one output device. Each computer program can beimplemented in a high-level procedural or object-oriented programminglanguage, or in assembly or machine language if desired; and in anycase, the language can be a compiled or interpreted language. Suitableprocessors include, by way of example, both general and special purposemicroprocessors. Generally, a processor will receive instructions anddata from a read-only memory and/or a random access memory. Generally, acomputer will include one or more mass storage devices for storing datafiles; such devices include magnetic disks, such as internal hard disksand removable disks; magneto-optical disks; and optical disks. Storagedevices suitable for tangibly embodying computer program instructionsand data include all forms of non-volatile memory, including by way ofexample semiconductor memory devices, such as EPROM, EEPROM, and flashmemory devices; magnetic disks such as internal hard disks and removabledisks; magneto-optical disks; and CD-ROM disks. Any of the foregoing canbe supplemented by, or incorporated in, ASICs (application-specificintegrated circuits).

To provide for interaction with a user, the invention can be implementedon a computer system having a display device such as a monitor or LCDscreen for displaying information to the user and a keyboard and apointing device such as a mouse or a trackball by which the user canprovide input to the computer system. The computer system can beprogrammed to provide a graphical user interface through which computerprograms interact with users.

A number of implementations of the invention have been described.Nevertheless, it will be understood that various modifications may bemade without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention. Forexample, the operations identified in each of the processes can beperformed in a different order. Also, circular expanding searching canbe implemented using delimited searching and/or incremental searching.Accordingly, other implementations are within the scope of the followingclaims.

What is claimed is:
 1. A method performed by an information appliance,the method comprising: receiving a verb-text input from a user anddisplaying the received verb-text in a user interface of the informationappliance, wherein the information appliance is operable to invoke aplurality of commands in response to receiving command input from theuser, and wherein receiving the verb-text input is not associated withany of the plurality of commands; receiving a user input selecting aportion of the displayed verb-text; after receiving the user inputselecting the portion of the displayed verb-text, receiving a commandinput from the user that designates the displayed verb-text input asbeing command text; after receiving the command input, selecting a firstcommand from the plurality of commands according to the command text;receiving a noun-text input from the user and displaying the receivednoun-text in the user interface, wherein receiving the noun-text inputis not associated with any of the plurality of commands; and invokingthe first command, wherein the first command uses the displayednoun-text as an operand.
 2. The method of claim 1, further comprising:after receiving the command input and before invoking the first command,receiving an input from the user identifying the displayed noun-text. 3.The method of claim 2, wherein the command input is a tap of a commandkey by the user, and wherein the command key is a designated controlthat, when tapped by a user, indicates that a current selection ofdisplayed text is to be interpreted by the information appliance ascommand input.
 4. The method of claim 1, further comprising: receivingan input from the user activating a command quasimode; receiving theverb-text input from the user while the command quasimode is activated;and selecting the first command after receiving an input from the userdeactivating the command quasimode.
 5. The method of claim 4, wherein acommand quasimode is defined by the user activating and holding acontrol that indicates that other input submitted by the user while thecontrol is held is to be interpreted by the information appliance ascommand input.
 6. The method of claim 4, wherein the user inputactivating the command quasimode is a press of a command key by the userand the user input deactivating the command quasimode is a release ofthe command key by the user.
 7. The method of claim 4, furthercomprising: displaying the verb-text input in a transparent message boxin the user interface while the command quasimode is activated.
 8. Themethod of claim 1, further comprising: deleting the displayed verb-textafter invoking the first command.
 9. An information appliance apparatuscomprising: one or more processors and one or more storage devicesstoring instructions that when executed by the one or more processorscause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:receiving a verb-text input from a user and displaying the receivedverb-text in a user interface of the information appliance apparatus,wherein the information appliance apparatus is operable to invoke aplurality of commands in response to receiving command input from theuser, and wherein receiving the verb-text input is not associated withany of the plurality of commands; receiving a user input selecting aportion of the displayed verb-text; after receiving the user inputselecting the portion of the displayed verb-text, receiving a commandinput from the user that designates the displayed verb-text input asbeing command text; after receiving the command input, selecting a firstcommand from the plurality of commands according to the command text;receiving a noun-text input from the user and displaying the receivednoun-text in the user interface, wherein receiving the noun-text inputis not associated with any of the plurality of commands; and invokingthe first command, wherein the first command uses the displayednoun-text as an operand.
 10. The information appliance apparatus ofclaim 9, the operations further comprising: after receiving the commandinput and before invoking the first command, receiving an input from theuser identifying the displayed noun-text.
 11. The information applianceapparatus of claim 10, wherein the command input is a tap of a commandkey by the user, and wherein the command key is a designated controlthat, when tapped by a user, indicates that a current selection ofdisplayed text is to be interpreted by the information appliance ascommand input.
 12. The information appliance apparatus of claim 9, theoperations further comprising: receiving an input from the useractivating a command quasimode; receiving the verb-text input from theuser while the command quasimode is activated; and selecting the firstcommand after receiving an input from the user deactivating the commandquasimode.
 13. The information appliance apparatus of claim 12, whereina command quasimode is defined by the user activating and holding acontrol that indicates that other input submitted by the user while thecontrol is held is to be interpreted by the information appliance ascommand input.
 14. The information appliance apparatus of claim 12,wherein the user input activating the command quasimode is a press of acommand key by the user and the user input deactivating the commandquasimode is a release of the command key by the user.
 15. A computerstorage medium encoded with a computer program, the program comprisinginstructions that when executed by an information appliance cause theinformation appliance to perform operations comprising: receiving averb-text input from a user and displaying the received verb-text in auser interface of the information appliance, wherein the informationappliance is operable to invoke a plurality of commands in response toreceiving command input from the user, and wherein receiving theverb-text input is not associated with any of the plurality of commands;receiving a user input selecting a portion of the displayed verb-text;after receiving the user input selecting the portion of the displayedverb-text, receiving a command input from the user that designates thedisplayed verb-text input as being command text; after receiving thecommand input, selecting a first command from the plurality of commandsaccording to the command text; receiving a noun-text input from the userand displaying the received noun-text in the user interface, whereinreceiving the noun-text input is not associated with any of theplurality of commands; and invoking the first command, wherein the firstcommand uses the displayed noun-text as an operand.
 16. The computerstorage medium of claim 15, the operations further comprising: afterreceiving the command input and before invoking the first command,receiving an input from the user identifying the displayed noun-text.17. The computer storage medium of claim 16, wherein the command inputis a tap of a command key by the user, and wherein the command key is adesignated control that, when tapped by a user, indicates that a currentselection of displayed text is to be interpreted by the informationappliance as command input.
 18. The computer storage medium of claim 15,the operations further comprising: receiving an input from the useractivating a command quasimode; receiving the verb-text input from theuser while the command quasimode is activated; and selecting the firstcommand after receiving an input from the user deactivating the commandquasimode.
 19. The computer storage medium of claim 18, wherein acommand quasimode is defined by the user activating and holding acontrol that indicates that other input submitted by the user while thecontrol is held is to be interpreted by the information appliance ascommand input.
 20. The computer storage medium of claim 18, wherein theuser input activating the command quasimode is a press of a command keyby the user and the user input deactivating the command quasimode is arelease of the command key by the user.